Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial

Jeffrey L. Lennox, Edwin DeJesus, Adriano Lazzarin, Richard B Pollard, Jose Valdez Ramalho Madruga, Daniel S. Berger, Jing Zhao, Xia Xu, Angela Williams-Diaz, Anthony J. Rodgers, Richard JO Barnard, Michael D. Miller, Mark J. DiNubile, Bach Yen Nguyen, Randi Leavitt, Peter Sklar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

501 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Use of raltegravir with optimum background therapy is effective and well tolerated in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. We compared the safety and efficacy of raltegravir with efavirenz as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive patients. Methods: Patients from 67 study centres on five continents were enrolled between Sept 14, 2006, and June 5, 2008. Eligible patients were infected with HIV-1, had viral RNA (vRNA) concentration of more than 5000 copies per mL, and no baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine. Patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio (double-blind) to receive 400 mg oral raltegravir twice daily or 600 mg oral efavirenz once daily, in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of a vRNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The primary analysis was per protocol. The margin of non-inferiority was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00369941. Findings: 566 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment, of whom 281 received raltegravir, 282 received efavirenz, and three were never treated. At baseline, 297 (53%) patients had more than 100 000 vRNA copies per mL and 267 (47%) had CD4 counts of 200 cells per μL or less. The main analysis (with non-completion counted as failure) showed that 86·1% (n=241 patients) of the raltegravir group and 81·9% (n=230) of the efavirenz group achieved the primary endpoint (difference 4·2%, 95% CI -1·9 to 10·3). The time to achieve such viral suppression was shorter for patients on raltegravir than on efavirenz (log-rank test p<0·0001). Significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in patients on raltegravir (n=124 [44·1%]) than those on efavirenz (n=217 [77·0%]; difference -32·8%, 95% CI -40·2 to -25·0, p<0·0001). Serious drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in each drug group. Interpretation: Raltegravir-based combination treatment had rapid and potent antiretroviral activity, which was non-inferior to that of efavirenz at week 48. Raltegravir is a well tolerated alternative to efavirenz as part of a combination regimen against HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. Funding: Merck.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)796-806
Number of pages11
JournalThe Lancet
Volume374
Issue number9692
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

efavirenz
HIV Infections
HIV-1
Randomized Controlled Trials
Safety
Tenofovir
Viral RNA
Therapeutics
Raltegravir Potassium
Pharmaceutical Preparations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection : a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial. / Lennox, Jeffrey L.; DeJesus, Edwin; Lazzarin, Adriano; Pollard, Richard B; Madruga, Jose Valdez Ramalho; Berger, Daniel S.; Zhao, Jing; Xu, Xia; Williams-Diaz, Angela; Rodgers, Anthony J.; Barnard, Richard JO; Miller, Michael D.; DiNubile, Mark J.; Nguyen, Bach Yen; Leavitt, Randi; Sklar, Peter.

In: The Lancet, Vol. 374, No. 9692, 2009, p. 796-806.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lennox, JL, DeJesus, E, Lazzarin, A, Pollard, RB, Madruga, JVR, Berger, DS, Zhao, J, Xu, X, Williams-Diaz, A, Rodgers, AJ, Barnard, RJO, Miller, MD, DiNubile, MJ, Nguyen, BY, Leavitt, R & Sklar, P 2009, 'Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial', The Lancet, vol. 374, no. 9692, pp. 796-806. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60918-1
Lennox, Jeffrey L. ; DeJesus, Edwin ; Lazzarin, Adriano ; Pollard, Richard B ; Madruga, Jose Valdez Ramalho ; Berger, Daniel S. ; Zhao, Jing ; Xu, Xia ; Williams-Diaz, Angela ; Rodgers, Anthony J. ; Barnard, Richard JO ; Miller, Michael D. ; DiNubile, Mark J. ; Nguyen, Bach Yen ; Leavitt, Randi ; Sklar, Peter. / Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection : a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial. In: The Lancet. 2009 ; Vol. 374, No. 9692. pp. 796-806.
@article{b8347fd59b194fe49c325ddb77496ac7,
title = "Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial",
abstract = "Background: Use of raltegravir with optimum background therapy is effective and well tolerated in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. We compared the safety and efficacy of raltegravir with efavirenz as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive patients. Methods: Patients from 67 study centres on five continents were enrolled between Sept 14, 2006, and June 5, 2008. Eligible patients were infected with HIV-1, had viral RNA (vRNA) concentration of more than 5000 copies per mL, and no baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine. Patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio (double-blind) to receive 400 mg oral raltegravir twice daily or 600 mg oral efavirenz once daily, in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of a vRNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The primary analysis was per protocol. The margin of non-inferiority was 12{\%}. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00369941. Findings: 566 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment, of whom 281 received raltegravir, 282 received efavirenz, and three were never treated. At baseline, 297 (53{\%}) patients had more than 100 000 vRNA copies per mL and 267 (47{\%}) had CD4 counts of 200 cells per μL or less. The main analysis (with non-completion counted as failure) showed that 86·1{\%} (n=241 patients) of the raltegravir group and 81·9{\%} (n=230) of the efavirenz group achieved the primary endpoint (difference 4·2{\%}, 95{\%} CI -1·9 to 10·3). The time to achieve such viral suppression was shorter for patients on raltegravir than on efavirenz (log-rank test p<0·0001). Significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in patients on raltegravir (n=124 [44·1{\%}]) than those on efavirenz (n=217 [77·0{\%}]; difference -32·8{\%}, 95{\%} CI -40·2 to -25·0, p<0·0001). Serious drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in less than 2{\%} of patients in each drug group. Interpretation: Raltegravir-based combination treatment had rapid and potent antiretroviral activity, which was non-inferior to that of efavirenz at week 48. Raltegravir is a well tolerated alternative to efavirenz as part of a combination regimen against HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. Funding: Merck.",
author = "Lennox, {Jeffrey L.} and Edwin DeJesus and Adriano Lazzarin and Pollard, {Richard B} and Madruga, {Jose Valdez Ramalho} and Berger, {Daniel S.} and Jing Zhao and Xia Xu and Angela Williams-Diaz and Rodgers, {Anthony J.} and Barnard, {Richard JO} and Miller, {Michael D.} and DiNubile, {Mark J.} and Nguyen, {Bach Yen} and Randi Leavitt and Peter Sklar",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60918-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "374",
pages = "796--806",
journal = "The Lancet",
issn = "0140-6736",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "9692",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection

T2 - a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial

AU - Lennox, Jeffrey L.

AU - DeJesus, Edwin

AU - Lazzarin, Adriano

AU - Pollard, Richard B

AU - Madruga, Jose Valdez Ramalho

AU - Berger, Daniel S.

AU - Zhao, Jing

AU - Xu, Xia

AU - Williams-Diaz, Angela

AU - Rodgers, Anthony J.

AU - Barnard, Richard JO

AU - Miller, Michael D.

AU - DiNubile, Mark J.

AU - Nguyen, Bach Yen

AU - Leavitt, Randi

AU - Sklar, Peter

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Background: Use of raltegravir with optimum background therapy is effective and well tolerated in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. We compared the safety and efficacy of raltegravir with efavirenz as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive patients. Methods: Patients from 67 study centres on five continents were enrolled between Sept 14, 2006, and June 5, 2008. Eligible patients were infected with HIV-1, had viral RNA (vRNA) concentration of more than 5000 copies per mL, and no baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine. Patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio (double-blind) to receive 400 mg oral raltegravir twice daily or 600 mg oral efavirenz once daily, in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of a vRNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The primary analysis was per protocol. The margin of non-inferiority was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00369941. Findings: 566 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment, of whom 281 received raltegravir, 282 received efavirenz, and three were never treated. At baseline, 297 (53%) patients had more than 100 000 vRNA copies per mL and 267 (47%) had CD4 counts of 200 cells per μL or less. The main analysis (with non-completion counted as failure) showed that 86·1% (n=241 patients) of the raltegravir group and 81·9% (n=230) of the efavirenz group achieved the primary endpoint (difference 4·2%, 95% CI -1·9 to 10·3). The time to achieve such viral suppression was shorter for patients on raltegravir than on efavirenz (log-rank test p<0·0001). Significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in patients on raltegravir (n=124 [44·1%]) than those on efavirenz (n=217 [77·0%]; difference -32·8%, 95% CI -40·2 to -25·0, p<0·0001). Serious drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in each drug group. Interpretation: Raltegravir-based combination treatment had rapid and potent antiretroviral activity, which was non-inferior to that of efavirenz at week 48. Raltegravir is a well tolerated alternative to efavirenz as part of a combination regimen against HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. Funding: Merck.

AB - Background: Use of raltegravir with optimum background therapy is effective and well tolerated in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. We compared the safety and efficacy of raltegravir with efavirenz as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive patients. Methods: Patients from 67 study centres on five continents were enrolled between Sept 14, 2006, and June 5, 2008. Eligible patients were infected with HIV-1, had viral RNA (vRNA) concentration of more than 5000 copies per mL, and no baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine. Patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio (double-blind) to receive 400 mg oral raltegravir twice daily or 600 mg oral efavirenz once daily, in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of a vRNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The primary analysis was per protocol. The margin of non-inferiority was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00369941. Findings: 566 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment, of whom 281 received raltegravir, 282 received efavirenz, and three were never treated. At baseline, 297 (53%) patients had more than 100 000 vRNA copies per mL and 267 (47%) had CD4 counts of 200 cells per μL or less. The main analysis (with non-completion counted as failure) showed that 86·1% (n=241 patients) of the raltegravir group and 81·9% (n=230) of the efavirenz group achieved the primary endpoint (difference 4·2%, 95% CI -1·9 to 10·3). The time to achieve such viral suppression was shorter for patients on raltegravir than on efavirenz (log-rank test p<0·0001). Significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in patients on raltegravir (n=124 [44·1%]) than those on efavirenz (n=217 [77·0%]; difference -32·8%, 95% CI -40·2 to -25·0, p<0·0001). Serious drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in each drug group. Interpretation: Raltegravir-based combination treatment had rapid and potent antiretroviral activity, which was non-inferior to that of efavirenz at week 48. Raltegravir is a well tolerated alternative to efavirenz as part of a combination regimen against HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. Funding: Merck.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=69449101785&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=69449101785&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60918-1

DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60918-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 19647866

AN - SCOPUS:69449101785

VL - 374

SP - 796

EP - 806

JO - The Lancet

JF - The Lancet

SN - 0140-6736

IS - 9692

ER -