Elvitegravir vs. Raltegravir: 96-Week Phase III Results in Treatment-Experienced Patients
Richard Elion from Whitman-Walker Health in Washington presented updated 96 week results from the phase 3 head-to-head study of elvitegravir vs raltegravir.1
The 48 week results, first presented at the IAS conference in Rome last year showed elvitegravir to be non-inferior to raltegravir based on viral suppression to <50 copies/mL.2
This phase 3 study randomised 712 treatment-experienced patients to either the investigational integrase inhibitor elvitegravir (150 mg once-daily) or raltegravir (400 mg twice-daily), each with matching placebo, plus a background regimen of a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) plus a third drug.
Baseline characteristics included mean age 45 years; 18% women; mean CD4 count 260 cells/mm3 (45% with CD4 <200), median viral load 20,000 copies/mL (with 26% >100,000 copies/mL) and 5% and 15% of patients were coinfected with HBV or HCV respectively. Approximately 63% patients had primary resistance to drugs in two or more classes (PI 33%, NRTI 72%, and NNRTI 61%), balanced between arms. Choice of background PI was largely darunavir (58%), lopinavir/r (19%) or atazanavir (16%). The third drug was an NRTI in 80% of patients (tenofovir 59%, tenofovir/FTC 27%, abacavir 4%, 3TC 3%, other 7%) with 13% using etravirine and 6% using maraviroc.
The primary endpoint of viral load <50 copies/mL through week 48 (time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] analysis) was achieved by 59% of elvitegravir vs 85% raltegravir patients respectively.
Virological response out to 96 weeks dropped similarly in each arm (to 48% vs 45%%), maintaining non-inferiority for the comparison (difference 2.6; 95%CI -4.6, +9.9). Approximately 40% of patients in each arm discontinued before week 96. Reasons were balanced between arms (non-compliance: 39 vs 34; loss to follow-up: 29 vs 31, lack of efficacy: 17 vs 21, etc) expect for withdrawal of consent (30 vs 17), all elvitegravir vs raltegravir, respectively. The respective percentages of patients with virological failure increased to 26% vs 29% and 26% of patient in each arm had discontinued for other reasons (including side effects). CD4 increases were similar at +205 vs + 195 cells/mm3 (all elvitegravir vs raltegravir, respectively).
Genotypic resistance test results were available for approximately 25% of patients with virological failure in each arm, with a quarter of these in each arm (23/87 vs 26/93) having integrase inhibitor-associated mutations. Although some mutations were shared, elvitegravir was associated with T66I/A (n=8), E92Q/G (n=7), N155H (n=5), T97A (n=4), S147G (n=4) and Q148R (n=4); and raltegravir with N155H (n=16), Q148H (n=7) and T97A (n=4). Resistant mutations associated with NRTIs (3%), PIs (1%) and NNRTIs (2-3%) were similar in each arm. A more detailed analysis of the resistance results was presented as a separate poster.3
Grade 2-4 side effects were similar (68% in each arm) with slightly higher diarrhoea with elvitegravir (13% vs 7%). Limited details were provided for the 20% rate of serious side effects in each group but these only led to discontinuation in 4% vs 3% of patients. Grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities were also similar, except for slightly higher ALT/AST/GGT in the raltegravir arm (2-3% vs 5-7%).
Elvitegravir has already been submitted to both the to the FDA and EMA for a decision on regulatory approval as a single agent.
Links to other websites are current at date of posting but not maintained.
In Vitro and Animal Data Support Safety Profile BMS 986001: d4T-Like NRTI Currently in Clinical Trials
This article was provided by HIV i-Base. It is a part of the publication HIV Treatment Bulletin. Visit HIV i-Base's website to find out more about their activities, publications and services.
Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)
The content on this page is free of advertiser influence and was produced by our editorial team. See our content and advertising policies.