Dolutegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1: 96-week results from a randomized dose-ranging study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety/tolerability of dolutegravir (DTG, S/GSK1349572), a potent inhibitor of HIV integrase, through the full 96 weeks of the SPRING-1 study. DESIGN: ING112276 (SPRING-1) was a 96-week, randomized, partially blinded, phase IIb dose-ranging study. METHODS: Treatment-naive adults with HIV received DTG 10, 25, or 50 mg once daily or efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg once daily (control arm) combined with investigator-selected dual nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone regimen (tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine). The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml, based on time to loss of virologic response at 16 weeks (conducted for the purpose of phase III dose selection), with a planned analysis at 96 weeks. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 208 participants randomized to treatment, 205 received study drug. At week 96, the proportion of participants achieving plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml was 79, 78, and 88% for DTG 10, 25, and 50 mg, respectively, compared with 72% for EFV. The median increase from baseline in CD4 cells was 338 cells/µl with DTG (all treatment groups combined) compared with 301 cells/µl with EFV (P  = 0.155). No clinically significant dose-related trends in adverse events were observed, and fewer participants who received DTG withdrew because of adverse events (3%) compared with EFV (10%). CONCLUSION: Throughout the 96 weeks of the SPRING-1 study, DTG demonstrated sustained efficacy and favorable safety/tolerability in treatment-naive individuals with HIV-1.

The statistician's role in the prevention of missing data.

Considerable statistical research has been performed in recent years to develop sophisticated statistical methods for handling missing data and dropouts in the analysis of clinical trial data. However, if statisticians and other study team members proactively set out at the trial initiation stage to assess the impact of missing data and investigate ways to reduce dropouts, there is considerable potential to improve the clarity and quality of trial results and also increase efficiency. This paper presents a Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) case study where statisticians led a project to reduce dropouts. The first step was to perform a pooled analysis of past HIV trials investigating which patient subgroups are more likely to drop out. The second step was to educate internal and external trial staff at all levels about the patient types more likely to dropout, and the impact this has on data quality and sample sizes required. The final step was to work collaboratively with clinical trial teams to create proactive plans regarding focused retention efforts, identifying ways to increase retention particularly in patients most at risk. It is acknowledged that identifying the specific impact of new patient retention efforts/tools is difficult because patient retention can be influenced by overall study design, investigational product tolerability profile, current standard of care and treatment access for the disease under study, which may vary over time. However, the implementation of new retention strategies and efforts within clinical trial teams attests to the influence of the analyses described in this case study.

Inhaled zanamivir versus rimantadine for the control of influenza in a highly vaccinated long-term care population.

BACKGROUND: Despite vaccination, influenza commonly causes morbidity and mortality in institutional settings. Influenza control with rimantadine and amantadine is limited by emergence and transmission of drug-resistant influenza A variants, ineffectiveness against influenza B, and toxicity. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of zanamivir versus rimantadine for influenza outbreak control in long-term care facilities. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, controlled study prospectively enrolled nursing home residents for 3 influenza seasons (1997 to 2000). Vaccine was offered to all subjects. Following influenza outbreak declaration, subjects were randomized to inhaled zanamivir 10 mg or standard of care (rimantadine 100 mg for influenza A or placebo for influenza B) once daily for 14 days. The proportion of randomized subjects developing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza during prophylaxis was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Of 482 randomizations (238 zanamivir, 231 rimantadine, 13 placebo), 96% of subjects were elderly or had high-risk conditions; over 90% were vaccinated. Symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza occurred in 3% of zanamivir subjects and 8% of rimantadine subjects during chemoprophylaxis (P = .038; additional protective efficacy for zanamivir over rimantadine = 61%). Since only 25 subjects were randomized during 2 influenza B outbreaks and none developed influenza, the influenza B data were excluded from further analysis. Zanamivir was well tolerated and unassociated with emergence of resistant virus; rimantadine-resistant variants were common. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective, controlled study demonstrating effectiveness of chemoprophylaxis for influenza outbreak control. Zanamivir prevents symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza more effectively than rimantadine, is unassociated with resistant virus, and has a favorable safety profile. Zanamivir is an appropriate alternative for influenza outbreak control among institutionalized vaccinated elderly.