The New England journal of medicine · 2023
Second-Line Switch to Dolutegravir for Treatment of HIV Infection.
Рандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ombajo Loice A, Penner Jeremy, Nkuranga Joseph, Mecha Jared, Mburu Margaret, Odhiambo Collins, Ndinya Florentius, Aksam Rukia, Njenga Richard, Wahome Simon, Muiruri Peter, Eshiwani Sheila, Kimani Maureen, Ngugi Catherine, Pozniak Anton
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Data to inform the switch from a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) to dolutegravir in patients living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who do not have genotype information and who have viral suppression with second-line therapy containing a ritonavir-boosted PI have been limited.
METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter, open-label trial conducted at four sites in Kenya, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, previously treated patients without genotype information who had viral suppression while receiving treatment containing a ritonavir-boosted PI to either switch to dolutegravir or continue the current regimen. The primary end point was a plasma HIV type 1 RNA level of at least 50 copies per milliliter at week 48, assessed on the basis of the Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm. The noninferiority margin for the between-group difference in the percentage of participants who met the primary end point was 4 percentage points. Safety up to week 48 was assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 795 participants were enrolled, with 398 assigned to switch to dolutegravir and 397 assigned to continue taking their ritonavir-boosted PI; 791 participants (397 in the dolutegravir group and 394 in the ritonavir-boosted PI group) were included in the intention-to-treat exposed population. At week 48, a total of 20 participants (5.0%) in the dolutegravir group and 20 (5.1%) in the ritonavir-boosted PI group met the primary end point (difference, -0.04 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -3.1 to 3.0), a result that met the criterion for noninferiority. No mutations conferring resistance to dolutegravir or the ritonavir-boosted PI were detected at the time of treatment failure. The incidence of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in the dolutegravir group and the ritonavir-boosted PI group (5.7% and 6.9%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: In previously treated patients with viral suppression for whom there were no data regarding the presence of drug-resistance mutations, dolutegravir treatment was noninferior to a regimen containing a ritonavir-boosted PI when the patients were switched from a ritonavir-boosted PI-based regimen. (Funded by ViiV Healthcare; 2SD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04229290.).
METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter, open-label trial conducted at four sites in Kenya, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, previously treated patients without genotype information who had viral suppression while receiving treatment containing a ritonavir-boosted PI to either switch to dolutegravir or continue the current regimen. The primary end point was a plasma HIV type 1 RNA level of at least 50 copies per milliliter at week 48, assessed on the basis of the Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm. The noninferiority margin for the between-group difference in the percentage of participants who met the primary end point was 4 percentage points. Safety up to week 48 was assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 795 participants were enrolled, with 398 assigned to switch to dolutegravir and 397 assigned to continue taking their ritonavir-boosted PI; 791 participants (397 in the dolutegravir group and 394 in the ritonavir-boosted PI group) were included in the intention-to-treat exposed population. At week 48, a total of 20 participants (5.0%) in the dolutegravir group and 20 (5.1%) in the ritonavir-boosted PI group met the primary end point (difference, -0.04 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -3.1 to 3.0), a result that met the criterion for noninferiority. No mutations conferring resistance to dolutegravir or the ritonavir-boosted PI were detected at the time of treatment failure. The incidence of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in the dolutegravir group and the ritonavir-boosted PI group (5.7% and 6.9%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: In previously treated patients with viral suppression for whom there were no data regarding the presence of drug-resistance mutations, dolutegravir treatment was noninferior to a regimen containing a ritonavir-boosted PI when the patients were switched from a ritonavir-boosted PI-based regimen. (Funded by ViiV Healthcare; 2SD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04229290.).