Safety, pharmacodynamics, and antiviral activity of selgantolimod in viremic patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection

Background & Aims

Novel finite therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) are needed, since lifelong treatment is usually required with current available oral antivirals. This phase II study (NCT03615066) evaluated the safety, pharmacodynamics, and antiviral activity of selgantolimod (a Toll-like receptor 8 agonist [TLR8]) with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF).

Methods

Viremic patients with CHB not receiving treatment were stratified by HBeAg status and randomized 2:2:1 to TAF 25 mg/day with selgantolimod 3 mg orally once weekly (QW), selgantolimod 1.5 mg QW, or placebo. Combination therapy continued until week (W)24, followed by TAF monotherapy until W48; patients then discontinued TAF and were followed until W96 (treatment-free follow-up [TFFU] period). The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion with ≥1 log10 IU/ml HBsAg decline at W24.

Results

Sixty-seven patients received study drug; 27 were followed during TFFU. Nausea, headache, vomiting, fatigue, and dizziness were the most common adverse events. Most adverse events were grade 1. Alanine aminotransferase flares were not observed up to W48. Four patients experienced alanine aminotransferase and hepatitis flares during TFFU; all had HBV DNA increases. Selgantolimod increased serum cytokines and chemokines and redistributed several circulating immune cell subsets. No patients achieved the primary efficacy endpoint. Mean HBsAg changes were -0.12, -0.16, and -0.12 log10 IU/ml in the selgantolimod 3 mg, selgantolimod 1.5 mg, and placebo groups, respectively, at W48; HBV DNA declined in all groups by ≥2 log10 IU/ml as early as W2, with all groups rebounding to baseline during TFFU. No HBsAg or HBeAg loss or seroconversion was observed throughout TFFU.

Conclusions

Selgantolimod up to 3 mg was safe and well tolerated. Pharmacodynamics and antiviral activity in viremic patients support continued study of selgantolimod in combination CHB therapies.

Impact and implications

Novel therapeutics for chronic HBV infection are needed to achieve a functional cure. In this study, we confirmed the safety and tolerability of selgantolimod (formerly GS-9688, a TLR8) when administered with tenofovir alafenamide over 24 weeks in viremic patients with chronic HBV infection. Overall, declines in HBsAg levels with selgantolimod treatment were modest; subgroup analysis indicated that patients with alanine aminotransferase levels greater than the upper limit of normal had significantly greater declines compared to those with normal alanine aminotransferase levels (-0.20 vs. -0.03 log10 IU/ml; p <0.001). These findings suggest a potential differential response to selgantolimod based on patients' baseline HBV-specific immune response, which should be considered in future investigations characterizing the underlying mechanisms of selgantolimod treatment and in HBV cure studies using similar immunomodulatory pathways.

Clinical trial number

NCT03615066 be found at https://www.gileadclinicaltrials.com/transparency-policy/.

Capsid Inhibition with Lenacapavir in Multidrug-Resistant HIV-1 Infection

BACKGROUND

Patients with multidrug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection have limited treatment options. Lenacapavir is a first-in-class capsid inhibitor that showed substantial antiviral activity in a phase 1b study.

METHODS

In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection in two cohorts, according to the change in the plasma HIV-1 RNA level between the screening and cohort-selection visits. In cohort 1, patients were first randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral lenacapavir or placebo in addition to their failing therapy for 14 days; during the maintenance period, starting on day 15, patients in the lenacapavir group received subcutaneous lenacapavir once every 6 months, and those in the placebo group received oral lenacapavir, followed by subcutaneous lenacapavir; both groups also received optimized background therapy. In cohort 2, all the patients received open-label oral lenacapavir with optimized background therapy on days 1 through 14; subcutaneous lenacapavir was then administered once every 6 months starting on day 15. The primary end point was the percentage of patients in cohort 1 who had a decrease of at least 0.5 log₁₀ copies per milliliter in the viral load by day 15; a key secondary end point was a viral load of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 26.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients were enrolled, with 36 in each cohort. In cohort 1, a decrease of at least 0.5 log₁₀ copies per milliliter in the viral load by day 15 was observed in 21 of 24 patients (88%) in the lenacapavir group and in 2 of 12 patients (17%) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 71 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 35 to 90). At week 26, a viral load of less than 50 copies per milliliter was reported in 81% of the patients in cohort 1 and in 83% in cohort 2, with a least-squares mean increase in the CD4+ count of 75 and 104 cells per cubic millimeter, respectively. No serious adverse events related to lenacapavir were identified. In both cohorts, lenacapavir-related capsid substitutions that were associated with decreased susceptibility developed in 8 patients during the maintenance period (6 with M66I substitutions).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection, those who received lenacapavir had a greater reduction from baseline in viral load than those who received placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; CAPELLA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04150068.).

Switching to Bictegravir/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir Alafenamide in Black Americans With HIV-1: A Randomized Phase 3b, Multicenter, Open-Label Study

BACKGROUND

With the highest rates of HIV/AIDS in the United States, Black Americans are still underrepresented in HIV medical research.

SETTING

BRAAVE (NCT03631732) is a randomized, phase 3b, multicenter, open-label US study.

METHODS

Adults identifying as Black or African American and virologically suppressed on 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus third agent were randomized (2:1) to switch to open-label bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) once daily or stay on baseline regimen (SBR) for 24 weeks, after which SBR had delayed switch to B/F/TAF. Resistance to non-NRTIs, protease inhibitors, and/or NRTIs was permitted; integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance was exclusionary. Primary endpoint was proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 24 (snapshot algorithm; noninferiority margin of 6%).

RESULTS

Of 558 screened, 495 were randomized/treated (B/F/TAF n = 330; SBR n = 165). Overall, 32% were ciswomen, 2% transwomen, and 10% had an M184V/I mutation. At week 24, 0.6% on B/F/TAF vs 1.8% on SBR had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL (difference -1.2%; 95% confidence interval -4.8% to 0.9%), demonstrating noninferiority of B/F/TAF vs SBR. Proportions with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL at week 24 were 96% B/F/TAF and 95% SBR and remained high at week 48. No participant had treatment-emergent resistance to study drug. Treatments were well tolerated. Study drug-related adverse events, mostly grade 1, occurred in 10% of participants on B/F/TAF through week 48 and led to discontinuation in 9 participants through week 48.

CONCLUSIONS

For Black Americans with HIV, switching to B/F/TAF was noninferior to continuing a variety of regimens, including those with pre-existing NRTI mutations.

Switching to Bictegravir, Emtricitabine, and Tenofovir Alafenamide in Virologically Suppressed Adults With Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Background

Bictegravir (B)/emtricitabine (F)/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is guideline-recommended treatment for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). We evaluated whether people receiving dolutegravir (DTG) plus F/TAF or F/TDF (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) with viral suppression can switch to B/F/TAF without compromising safety or efficacy, regardless of preexisting nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) resistance.

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, we enrolled adults who were virologically suppressed for ≥6 months before screening (with documented/suspected NRTI resistance) or ≥3 months before screening (with no documented/suspected NRTI resistance) on DTG plus either F/TDF or F/TAF. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to switch to B/F/TAF or DTG + F/TAF once daily for 48 weeks, each with matching placebo. The primary endpoint was proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 48 (snapshot algorithm); the prespecified noninferiority margin was 4%.

Results

Five hundred sixty-seven adults were randomized; 565 were treated (284 B/F/TAF, 281 DTG + F/TAF). At week 48, B/F/TAF was noninferior to DTG + F/TAF, as 0.4% (1/284) vs 1.1% (3/281) had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL (difference, −0.7% [95.001% confidence interval {CI}, −2.8% to 1.0%]). There were no significant differences in efficacy among participants with suspected or confirmed prior NRTI resistance (n = 138). No participant had treatment-emergent drug resistance. Median weight change from baseline at week 48 was +1.3 kg (B/F/TAF) vs +1.1 kg (DTG + F/TAF) (P = .46). Weight change differed by baseline NRTIs (+2.2 kg [F/TDF] and +0.6 kg [F/TAF], P < .001), with no differences between B/F/TAF and DTG + F/TAF.

Conclusions

The single-tablet regimen B/F/TAF is a safe, effective option for people virologically suppressed on DTG plus either F/TDF or F/TAF, including in individuals with preexisting resistance to NRTIs.

Clinical Trials Registration

NCT03110380.

Long-term safety and efficacy of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide vs emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV-1 pre-exposure prophylaxis: week 96 results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In DISCOVER, a multinational, randomised controlled trial, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide compared with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate showed non-inferior efficacy for HIV prevention and improved bone mineral density and renal safety biomarkers at week 48. We report outcomes analysed after all participants had completed 96 weeks of follow-up.

METHODS

This study is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 94 community, public health, and hospital-associated clinics located in Europe and North America. Adult cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men, both with a high risk of acquiring HIV as determined by self-reported sexual behaviour or recent sexually transmitted infections, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (200/25 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group), or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (200/300 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). The primary efficacy outcome was incident HIV infection. Incidence of HIV-1 infection per 100 person-years was assessed when the last participant had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02842086.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 13, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 5387 participants were randomly assigned to receive emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (n=2694) or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=2693), contributing 10 081 person-years of follow-up. At 96 weeks of follow-up, there were eight HIV infections in participants who had received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (0·16 infections per 100 person-years [95% CI 0·07-0·31]) and 15 in participants who had received emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (0·30 infections per 100 person-years [0·17-0·49]). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide maintained its non-inferiority to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention (IRR 0·54 [95% CI 0·23-1·26]). Approximately 78-82% of participants reported taking study medication more than 95% of the time across all study visits. Rates of sexually transmitted infections remained high and similar across groups (21 cases per 100 person-years for rectal gonorrhoea and 28 cases per 100 person-years for rectal chlamydia). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide continued to show superiority over emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in all but one of the six prespecified bone mineral density and renal biomarkers. There was more weight gain among participants who had received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (median weight gain 1·7 kg vs 0·5 kg, p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide is safe and effective for longer-term pre-exposure prophylaxis in cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men.

FUNDING

Gilead Sciences.

Fixed-dose combination bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide in adolescents and children with HIV: week 48 results of a single-arm, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial

BACKGROUND

Bictegravir is a potent integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) with a high genetic barrier to resistance. Bictegravir, coformulated with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, is recommended by key European and US HIV treatment guidelines as the preferred single-tablet regimen for adults and adolescents. The aim of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of switching to this regimen in virologically suppressed children and adolescents with HIV.

METHODS

In this single-arm, open-label trial, we enrolled virologically suppressed children and adolescents (aged 6 to <18 years) with HIV at 22 hospital clinics in South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and the USA. Eligible participants had a bodyweight of at least 25 kg, were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) on a stable ART regimen for at least 6 months before screening, had a CD4 count of at least 200 cells per μL, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 90 mL/min per 1·73 m² by the Schwartz formula at screening. All participants received the fixed-dose regimen of coformulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg once daily. Pharmacokinetic analysis was used for dosing confirmation, and results compared with adult values. The primary outcomes were area under the curve at the end of the dosing interval (AUC_tau) and concentration at the end of the dosing interval (C_tau) of bictegravir, and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and laboratory abnormalities at week 24. Efficacy and safety analyses included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. We report the 48-week results. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02881320.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 29, 2016 and Feb 16, 2018, we enrolled 102 participants. 100 participants received bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (cohort 1 [adolescents aged 12 to <18 years], n=50; cohort 2 [children aged 6 to <12 years], n=50). The mean bictegravir AUC_tau was 89 100 ng × h/mL (coefficient of variation 31·0%) in adolescents (cohort 1) and 128 000 ng × h/mL (27·8%) in children (cohort 2). Compared with adults, bictegravir C_tau was 35% lower in adolescents and 11% lower in children. The 90% CIs of both parameters were within the predefined pharmacokinetic equivalence boundary and within overall range of exposures observed in adults and deemed to be safe and efficacious (geometric least-squares mean ratio [GLSM] 86·3% [90% CI 80·0-93·0] for AUC_tau and 65·4% [58·3-73·3] for C_tau in adolescents; GLSM 125% [90% CI 117-134] for AUC_tau and 88·9% [80·6-98·0] for C_tau for children). Bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was well tolerated; most adverse events were grade 2 or less in severity and no study drug-related serious adverse events were reported. One participant discontinued study drug due to adverse events (grade 2 insomnia and anxiety). Virological suppression (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) was maintained by all 100 participants at week 24 and by 98 (98%) of 100 at week 48; no participants had treatment-emergent resistance.

INTERPRETATION

In adolescents and children with HIV, the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide single-tablet regimen was well tolerated and maintained virological suppression. Our data support the treatment of HIV in adolescents and children with this single-tablet regimen. At present, the single-tablet regimen is recommended as first-line treatment in the USA for adolescents and as an alternative regimen in children and has the potential to represent an important regimen in the paediatric population.

FUNDING

Gilead Sciences.

The TLR7 agonist vesatolimod induced a modest delay in viral rebound in HIV controllers after cessation of antiretroviral therapy

Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) agonists, in combination with other therapies, can induce sustained control of simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV) or simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) in nonhuman primates. Here, we report the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1b clinical trial of an oral TLR7 agonist, vesatolimod, in HIV-1-infected controllers on antiretroviral therapy (ART). We randomized participants 2:1 to receive vesatolimod (n = 17) or placebo (n = 8) once every other week for a total of 10 doses while continuing on ART. ART was then interrupted, and the time to viral rebound was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Vesatolimod was associated with induction of immune cell activation, decreases in intact proviral DNA during ART, and a modest increase in time to rebound after ART was interrupted. The delayed viral rebound was predicted by the lower intact proviral DNA at the end of vesatolimod treatment (13 days after the final dose). Inferred pathway analysis suggested increased dendritic cell and natural killer cell cross-talk and an increase in cytotoxicity potential after vesatolimod dosing. Larger clinical studies will be necessary to assess the efficacy of vesatolimod-based combination therapies aimed at long-term control of HIV infection.

Vesatolimod, a Toll-like Receptor 7 Agonist, Induces Immune Activation in Virally Suppressed Adults Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1

BACKGROUND

Treatment with vesatolimod, an investigational, oral, toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) agonist, leads to sustained viral remission in some non-human primates when combined with anti-envelope antibodies or therapeutic vaccines. We report results of a Phase Ib study evaluating safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of vesatolimod in adults living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1.

METHODS

In this double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial, participants on antiretroviral therapy with screening plasma HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL were randomized (6:2) to receive 6-10 doses of vesatolimod (1-12 mg) or matching placebo orally every other week in sequential dose-escalation cohorts. The primary study objectives included establishing the safety and virologic effects of vesatolimod (change from baseline in plasma HIV-1 RNA). Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic/immunologic activity were assessed as secondary objectives.

RESULTS

A total of 48 individuals were randomly assigned to vesatolimod (n = 36) or placebo (n = 12). Vesatolimod was generally well tolerated, with no study drug-related serious adverse events or adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation. There were no statistically significant changes from baseline in plasma HIV-1 RNA in the vesatolimod groups, compared to placebo.Vesatolimod plasma exposures increased dose proportionally; consistent responses in cytokines, interferon-stimulated gene expression, and lymphocyte activation were observed with increasing dose levels above 4 mg. Peak elevations 24 hours after receipt of a 6 mg dose were >3.9-fold higher for interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (IP-10), interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), interferon-inducible T-cell alpha chemoattractant (ITAC) when compared to baseline values.

CONCLUSIONS

Vesatolimod was well tolerated at doses ranging from 1 to 12 mg. Immune stimulation was observed at doses above 4 mg, providing rationale for future combination trials in people living with HIV.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT02858401.

Remdesivir Versus Standard-of-Care for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An Analysis of 28-Day Mortality

Background

Remdesivir is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been shown to shorten time to recovery and improve clinical outcomes in randomized trials.

Methods

This was the final day 28 comparative analysis of data from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study comparing 2 remdesivir regimens (5 vs 10 days, combined for this analysis [remdesivir cohort]) and a real-world retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (nonremdesivir cohort). Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score matching (up to 1:10 ratio) was used to ensure comparable populations. We assessed day 14 clinical recovery (determined using a 7-point ordinal scale) and day 28 all-cause mortality (coprimary endpoints).

Results

A total of 368 (remdesivir) and 1399 (nonremdesivir) patients were included in the matched analysis. The day 14 clinical recovery rate was significantly higher among the remdesivir versus the nonremdesivir cohort (65.2% vs 57.1%; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–1.90; P = 0.002). The day 28 mortality rate was significantly lower in the remdesivir cohort versus the nonremdesivir cohort (12.0% vs 16.2%; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47–.95; P = .03).

Conclusions

Remdesivir was associated with significantly higher rates of day 14 clinical recovery, and lower day 28 mortality, compared with standard-of-care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These data, taken together, support the use of remdesivir to improve clinical recovery and decrease mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Evaluation of hepatitis C treatment-as-prevention within Australian prisons (SToP-C): a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Limited empirical evidence exists for the effectiveness of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment-as-prevention. The Surveillance and Treatment of Prisoners with hepatitis C (SToP-C) study aimed to assess the effect of HCV treatment-as-prevention in the prison setting.

METHODS

SToP-C was a prospective study, including a before-and-after analysis, within a cohort of people incarcerated in two maximum-security prisons (male) and two medium-security prisons (one male, one female) in New South Wales, Australia. All prison inmates aged at least 18 years were eligible for enrolment. After HCV testing, participants were monitored for risk behaviours and HCV infection, among three sub-populations: uninfected (HCV antibody-negative); previously infected (HCV antibody-positive, HCV RNA-negative); and infected (HCV antibody and HCV RNA-positive). Uninfected participants were followed up every 3-6 months to detect HCV primary infection and previously infected participants were followed up every 3-6 months to detect re-infection. Participants with HCV infection were assessed for treatment, initially standard-of-care treatment (administered by prison health services) from 2014 to mid-2017, then direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment scale-up from mid-2017 onwards (12 weeks of sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir, administered through SToP-C). Participants were followed up until study closure in November, 2019. The primary study outcome was HCV incidence before and after DAA treatment scale-up among participants at risk of HCV primary infection or re-infection. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02064049.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 30, 2014, and Sept 30, 2019, 3691 participants were enrolled in the SToP-C study. 719 (19%) participants had detectable HCV RNA, 2240 (61%) were at risk of primary HCV infection, and 725 (20%) were at risk of re-infection at baseline. DAA treatment was initiated in 349 (70%) of 499 eligible participants during the treatment scale-up period. The HCV incidence analysis comprised 1643 participants at risk of HCV infection or re-infection during longitudinal follow-up (median age 33 years [IQR 27-42]; 1350 [82%] male). 487 (30%) of 1643 participants reported injecting drugs in prison. HCV incidence decreased from 8·31 per 100 person-years in the pre-treatment scale-up period to 4·35 per 100 person-years in the post-treatment scale-up period (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·52 [95% CI 0·36-0·78]; p=0·0007). The incidence of primary infection decreased from 6·64 per 100 person-years in the pre-treatment scale-up period to 2·85 per 100 person-years in the post-treatment scale-up period (IRR 0·43 [95% CI 0·25-0·74]; p=0·0019), whereas the incidence of re-infection decreased from 12·36 per 100 person-years to 7·27 per 100 person-years (0·59 [0·35-1·00]; p=0·050). Among participants reporting injecting drugs during their current imprisonment, the incidence of primary infection decreased from 39·08 per 100 person-years in the pre-treatment scale-up period to 14·03 per 100 person-years in the post-treatment scale-up period (IRR 0·36 [95% CI 0·16-0·80]; p=0·0091), and the incidence of re-infection decreased from 15·26 per 100 person-years to 9·34 per 100 person-years (0·61 [0·34-1·09]; p=0·093). The adjusted analysis (adjusted for age, Indigenous Australian ethnicity, duration of stay in prison, previous imprisonment, injecting drug use status, and prison site) indicated a significant reduction in the risk of HCV infection between the pre-DAA treatment scale-up and post-DAA treatment scale-up periods (adjusted hazard ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·33-0·76]; p=0·0014).

INTERPRETATION

DAA treatment scale-up was associated with reduced HCV incidence in prison, indicative of a beneficial effect of HCV treatment-as-prevention in this setting. These findings support broad DAA treatment scale-up within incarcerated populations.

FUNDING

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Partnership Project Grant and Gilead Sciences.

Compassionate Use of Remdesivir in Children With Severe COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its efficacy and safety in children are unknown. We describe outcomes in children with severe COVID-19 treated with remdesivir.

METHODS

Seventy-seven hospitalized patients <18 years old with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection received remdesivir through a compassionate-use program between March 21 and April 22, 2020. The intended remdesivir treatment course was 10 days (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg daily subsequently for children ≥40 kg and 5 mg/kg on day 1 and 2.5 mg/kg daily subsequently for children <40 kg, given intravenously). Clinical data through 28 days of follow-up were collected.

RESULTS

Median age was 14 years (interquartile range 7-16, range <2 months to 17 years). Seventy-nine percent of patients had ≥1 comorbid condition. At baseline, 90% of children required supplemental oxygen and 51% required invasive ventilation. By day 28 of follow-up, 88% of patients had a decreased oxygen-support requirement, 83% recovered, and 73% were discharged. Among children requiring invasive ventilation at baseline, 90% were extubated, 80% recovered, and 67% were discharged. There were 4 deaths, of which 3 were attributed to COVID-19. Remdesivir was well tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse events (16%). Most adverse events were related to COVID-19 or comorbid conditions. Laboratory abnormalities, including elevations in transaminase levels, were common; 61% were grades 1 or 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Among 77 children treated with remdesivir for severe COVID-19, most recovered and the rate of serious adverse events was low.

Weight Gain Following Initiation of Antiretroviral Therapy: Risk Factors in Randomized Comparative Clinical Trials

Background

Initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) often leads to weight gain. While some of this weight gain may be an appropriate return-to-health effect, excessive increases in weight may lead to obesity. We sought to explore factors associated with weight gain in several randomized comparative clinical trials of ART initiation.

Methods

We performed a pooled analysis of weight gain in 8 randomized controlled clinical trials of treatment-naive people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) initiating ART between 2003 and 2015, comprising >5000 participants and 10 000 person-years of follow-up. We used multivariate modeling to explore relationships between demographic factors, HIV disease characteristics, and ART components and weight change following ART initiation.

Results

Weight gain was greater in more recent trials and with the use of newer ART regimens. Pooled analysis revealed baseline demographic factors associated with weight gain including lower CD4 cell count, higher HIV type 1 RNA, no injection drug use, female sex, and black race. Integrase strand transfer inhibitor use was associated with more weight gain than were protease inhibitors or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), with dolutegravir and bictegravir associated with more weight gain than elvitegravir/cobicistat. Among the NNRTIs, rilpivirine was associated with more weight gain than efavirenz. Among nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, tenofovir alafenamide was associated with more weight gain than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, abacavir, or zidovudine.

Conclusions

Weight gain is ubiquitous in clinical trials of ART initiation and is multifactorial in nature, with demographic factors, HIV-related factors, and the composition of ART regimens as contributors. The mechanisms by which certain ART agents differentially contribute to weight gain are unknown.

561. Safety of Remdesivir vs Standard Care in Patients with Moderate Covid-19

Background

Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Here we report safety of RDV in patients with moderate COVID-19.

Methods

We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) in hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, and oxygen saturation >94% on room air. Patients were randomly assigned to receive RDV (5 or 10 days) or standard of care (SOC). RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1, 100 mg daily thereafter. Adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities were evaluated through the day 11 data cut; safety data through day 28 will be presented at the meeting.

Results

584 patients were randomized and treated (5d RDV: n=191; 10d RDV, n=193; SOC: n=200). Baseline characteristics were balanced among groups; median (range) age was 57y (12-95y), 39% were female and 19% Black, 39% had arterial hypertension, 15% hyperlipidemia, 11% asthma. Briefly, across both the 5d and 10d arms, RDV was well tolerated with a similar rate of Grade 3 or 4 AEs and fewer SAEs compared to SOC (Table). AEs more common with RDV vs SOC included nausea, headache, and hypokalemia. Overall, across the 3 arms, incidence of AEs leading to discontinuation and death were low and no clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters were observed. In addition, median changes in renal and liver function tests from baseline were not statistically significant between the RDV 5d and RDV 10d groups compared to the SOC only group at d14 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Conclusion

RDV given for 5d or 10d was well tolerated in patients with moderate COVID-19. No clinically significant safety signals were observed with RDV vs SOC.

Disclosures

Gerard J. Criner, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regeneron (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gerard J. Criner, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Mi Young Ahn, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gregory Huhn, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Janssen (Grant/Research Support)Proteus (Grant/Research Support)US National Institutes of Health (Grant/Research Support)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support) Aruna Subramanian, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Carlos Lumbreras, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Stefan Schmiedel, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Vithika Suri, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Huyen Cao, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Hongyuan Wang, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Huldrych Günthard, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) D Jose Sanz-Moreno, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Judith A. Aberg, MD, Theratechnology (Consultant) Emanuele Nicastri, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA

72. Remdesivir vs Standard Care in Patients with Moderate covid-19

Background

Remdesivir (RDV) shortens time to recovery time in patients with severe COVID-19. Its effect in patients with moderate COVID-19 remains unclear.

Methods

We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, and oxygen saturation >94% on room air. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive up to 5d or 10d of RDV with standard of care (SoC), or SoC alone; patients could be discharged prior to completing per-protocol assigned treatment duration. RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on d1, 100 mg daily thereafter. Patients were evaluated daily while hospitalized, and via telephone if discharged. The primary endpoint was clinical status on d11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale. Results regarding the primary endpoint are expected to be published before IDWeek 2020; we plan to present d28 results at the meeting.

Results

In total, 584 patients underwent randomization and started their assigned treatment (191, 5d RDV; 193, 10d RDV; 200, SoC). By d11, ³ 2 point improvement on the ordinal scale occurred in 70% of patients in the 5d arm, 65% in the 10d arm, and 61% in the SoC arm. Patients in the 5d RDV arm were significantly more likely to have an improvement in clinical status than those receiving SoC (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–2.48; P=0.017); OR of improvement for the 10d RDV arm compared to SoC was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.88–1.95]; p=0.183). This improvement in the 5-day arm over the SOC arm was noted from d6 through d11. We observed a peak of discharges corresponding with the assigned treatment duration of RDV, with increased discharges at d6 in the 5-day arm and at d11 in the 10-day arm. A worsening of clinical status of ≥ 1 point in the ordinal scale was observed more commonly in the SoC am (n=19, 10%) versus the 5d RDV (n=7, 4%) and 10d RDV (n=9, 5%).

Conclusion

RDV for up to 5 days was superior to SoC in improving the clinical status of patients with moderate COVID-19 by d11. We will report d28 outcomes at the meeting.

Disclosures

Francisco M. Marty, MD, Allovir (Consultant)Amplyx (Consultant)Ansun (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Avir (Consultant)Cidara (Scientific Research Study Investigator)F2G (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Kyorin (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)New England Journal of Medicine (Other Financial or Material Support, Honorarium for Video)Regeneron (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)ReViral (Consultant)Scynexis (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Symbio (Consultant)Takeda (Scientific Research Study Investigator)United Medical (Consultant)WHISCON (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Prashant Malhotra, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Karen T. Tashima, MD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Research Grant or Support)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)GlaxoSmithKline (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Tibotec (Research Grant or Support)Viiv Healthcare (Research Grant or Support) Massimo Galli, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Louis Yi Ann Chai, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Hongyuan Wang, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Lijie Zhong, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Huyen Cao, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Michael Brown, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Ane Josune Goikoetxea, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Mamta Jain, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support) David Shu Cheong Hui, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Enos Bernasconi, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Christoph Spinner, MD, AbbVie (Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)MSD (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)

557. Impact of Concomitant Hydroxychloroquine Use on Safety and Efficacy of Remdesivir in Moderate COVID-19 Patients

Background

Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine (HQN) is an experimental treatment for COVID-19. Effects of coadministration of HQN with RDV have not been studied and are relevant given the long half-life (~22 days) of HQN. We report the impact of concomitant HQN and RDV use on clinical outcomes and safety in patients with moderate COVID-19.

Methods

We enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation >94% on room air, and radiological evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 5d or 10d of intravenous RDV once daily plus standard of care (SoC), or SoC only. We compared patients on concomitant HQN (HQN^pos) vs not (HQN^neg). Clinical recovery was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards. Covariate adjustment included age, sex, race, region, symptom duration, oxygen support status and obesity. Recovery and adverse events (AEs) were assessed through death, discharge, or d14.

Results

Of 584 patients, 199 (34%) received HQN (5d RDV: n=57 [30%]; 10d RDV, n=49 [25%]; SoC: n=93 [47%]). Through median follow-up of 13d (range 1-41d), HQN^pos patients on 5d or 10d RDV had a lower recovery rate (adjusted HR [95% CI] 0.78 [0.59, 1.03], p=0.09) with longer median time to recovery (8 vs 6 days) compared to HQN^neg. HQN^pos compared to HQN^neg patients in 5d RDV showed a trend of reduced recovery rate (HR: 0.69 [0.45,1.04], p=0.080); such an effect was not observed in 10d RDV or SoC (Table 1). More HQN^pos than HQN^neg patients had AEs in RDV (5/10d) or SoC arms evaluated separately, and all arms combined. This difference was significant for AEs and SAEs for all arms combined after covariate adjustment (Table 2).

Table 1.

Table 2.

Conclusion

In moderate COVID-19 patients, concomitant HQN may delay recovery on RDV and showed no impact on recovery with SoC alone. The AE profile of HQN^pos patients was worse than that observed for HQN^neg patients, regardless of RDV treatment.

Disclosures

Jose Ramon Arribas, MD, Alexa (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Viiv Healthcare (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Jose Ramon Arribas, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Arun J. Sanyal, MD, AbbVie (Consultant)Akarna (Shareholder)Amarin (Consultant)Ardelyx (Consultant)Astra Zeneca (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Boehringer (Consultant)Bristol Myers Squibb (Research Grant or Support)Conatus (Consultant)Cumberland (Research Grant or Support)Durect (Shareholder)Elsevier (Other Financial or Material Support, Royalties)Exhalenz (Shareholder)Fibrogen (Consultant)Genfit (Shareholder)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)Haemoshear (Shareholder)Indalo (Shareholder)Intercept (Research Grant or Support)Jannsen (Consultant)Lilly (Consultant)Malinckrodt (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Nimbus (Consultant)Nitto Denko (Consultant)Novartis (Consultant)Pfizer (Consultant)Salix (Consultant)Sanyal Biotechnology (Employee, Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support, President)Shire (Research Grant or Support)Takeda (Consultant)Tiziana (Shareholder)Tobira (Consultant)UptoDate (Other Financial or Material Support, Royalties)Zafgen (Consultant) Bum Sik Chin, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Bum Sik Chin, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Shirin Kalimuddin, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Stefan Schreiber, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Emon Elboudwarej, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Yuan Tian, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Christoph Lübbert, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Judith A. Aberg, MD, Theratechnology (Consultant) Enrique Navas Elorza, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Karen T. Tashima, MD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Research Grant or Support)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)GlaxoSmithKline (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Tibotec (Research Grant or Support)Viiv Healthcare (Research Grant or Support) Mark McPhail, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

985. Impact of Age and Medical Comorbidities on Renal Outcomes in the DISCOVER Trial

Background

In DISCOVER, emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) was noninferior to F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in men who have sex with men and transgender women, with a superior renal laboratory profile. The differential impact of F/TAF and F/TDF on renal parameters among older individuals and those with medical comorbidities is unknown.

Methods

DISCOVER randomized participants 1:1 to daily blinded F/TAF or F/TDF. We examined renal outcomes at week 48 including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) by Cockcroft-Gault, β2 microglobulin (M):Creatinine (Cr) and retinol binding protein (RBP):Cr ratios (markers of proximal renal tubular function), and discontinuations due to investigator reported study drug-related renal adverse events (AEs).

Results

Median age was 34 years (yrs)(range 18-76), with 12.5% vs 10.9% < 25yrs, 12.2% vs 14.4% ≥ 50yrs, and 1.1% vs 0.9% > 65yrs for F/TAF and F/TDF, respectively. The prevalence of medical comorbidities at baseline were; eGFR < 90mL/min= 9.1% vs 9.3%, diabetes= 2.9% vs 3.3%, and hypertension= 10.5 vs 11.1%, for F/TAF and F/TDF, respectively. eGFR changes by age category and medical comorbidity status are found in the Table. Forty participants had study drug-related renal AEs; 14 with F/TAF and 26 with F/TDF. Of these, 25% were > 50yrs, 20% had baseline eGFR < 90mL/min, 7.5% had history of diabetes, and 22.5% had history of hypertension. β2M:Cr and RBP:Cr changes were more favorable in participants receiving F/TAF, with greater magnitude of difference in older participants (data not shown).

Table.

Conclusion

The DISCOVER trial allows for a large single variable comparison of the two tenofovir prodrugs in the absence of underlying HIV infection and in the absence of third antiretroviral agents. F/TAF was associated with favorable changes in renal biomarkers regardless of age or medical comorbidity. Participants ≥50yrs or with comorbidities were proportionately more likely to develop study drug related renal AEs, but these were present in the minority of cases.

Disclosures

Eric Daar, MD, BMS (Consultant)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Janssen (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Teva (Consultant)Theratechnology (Consultant)Viiv Healthcare (Consultant, Grant/Research Support) Jason Brunetta, MD, AbbVie (Consultant)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Conference attendance sponsorship)Janssen (Other Financial or Material Support, Conference attendance sponsorship)Merck (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Conference attendance sponsorship)Viiv Healthcare (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Conference attendance sponsorship) Eric Cua, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Asmuth, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Christoph C. Carter, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Yongwu Shao, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Pamela Wong, MPH, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Ramin Ebrahimi, MSc, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Moupali Das, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Amanda Clarke, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Other Financial or Material Support, Conference attendance sponsorship)Viiv Healthcare (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Conference travel sponsorship)

73. Geographical Disparities in Clinical Outcomes of Severe COVID-19 Patients Treated with Remdesivir

Background

Remdesivir (RDV), a RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, is the only treatment with demonstrated efficacy in shortening the duration of COVID-19. Here we report regional differences in clinical outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients treated with RDV, as part of an open-label, randomized phase-3 trial establishing RDV treatment duration.

Methods

Hospitalized patients with oxygen saturation ≤94%, a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR in the past 4 days and radiographic evidence of pneumonia were randomized 1:1 to receive 5d or 10d of intravenous RDV. We compared d14 clinical outcomes of patients from different geographical areas, as measured by mortality rates, change in clinical status from baseline (BL) on a 7-point ordinal scale and change in O2 requirements from BL. Based on previous analyses in compassionate use data showing region as an important predictor of outcome, Italy was examined separately from other regions.

Results

397 patients were treated with RDV, of which 229 (58%) were in the US, 77 (19%) Italy, 61 (15% in Spain), 12 (3%) Republic of Korea, 9 (2%) Singapore, 4 (1%) Germany, 4 (1%) Hong Kong and 1 (< 1%) Taiwan. BL clinical status was worse in Italy compared to other regions (72% vs 17% requiring high-flow oxygen delivery or higher), and Italian patients were more likely to be male than patients from other regions (69% vs 63%). Overall results showed 5d RDV was as effective as 10d. Mortality at d14 was higher in Italy (18%) compared to all other countries except Italy (7%). Similarly, clinical improvement at d14, measured as ≥2-point increase in the ordinal scale, was lower in Italian patients (39%) compared to all other countries combined (64%). (Fig.1).

Figure 1. Change from Baseline in Clinical Status (measured on a 7-point Ordinal Scale) at d14.

Conclusion

Overall, our results demonstrate significant geographical differences in the clinical course of severe COVID-19 patients treated with RDV. We observed worse outcomes, such as increased mortality and lower rate of clinical improvement, in patients from Italy compared to other regions.

Disclosures

George Diaz, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Jose Ramon Arribas, MD, Alexa (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Viiv Healthcare (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Jose Ramon Arribas, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Philip A. Robinson, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Anna Maria Cattelan, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Karen T. Tashima, MD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Research Grant or Support)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)GlaxoSmithKline (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Tibotec (Research Grant or Support)Viiv Healthcare (Research Grant or Support) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Yao-Shen Chen, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Elena Vendrame, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Christiana Blair, MS, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Bum Sik Chin, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Bum Sik Chin, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Christoph Spinner, MD, AbbVie (Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)MSD (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel) Gerard J. Criner, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regeneron (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gerard J. Criner, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Jose Muñoz, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA David Chien Boon Lye, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

1046. Week 48 Outcomes from the BRAAVE 2020 Study: A Randomized Switch to B/F/TAF in African American Adults with HIV

Background

Black Americans are disproportionately impacted by HIV. The BRAAVE 2020 study, evaluated the safety and efficacy of switching to the guidelines-recommended single-tablet regimen bictegravir, emtricitabine, tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) in Black adults through week (W) 48.

Methods

Adults with HIV who self-identified as Black or African American and were virologically suppressed on 2 NRTIs plus a 3rd agent were randomized (2:1) to switch to open-label B/F/TAF once daily or stay on their baseline regimen (SBR). Prior virologic failure was allowed except failure on an INSTI. Prior resistance to NNRTIs, PIs and/or NRTIs was permitted except K65R/E/N, ≥3 thymidine analog mutations or T69-insertions. Primary INSTI-resistance was excluded. SBR participants switched to B/F/TAF at W24. Efficacy was assessed at the W24 (1○ endpoint, noninferiority margin 6%) and at W48 as the proportion with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL by FDA Snapshot and by changes in CD4 count. Safety was assessed by adverse events (AE) and lab results.

Results

495 were randomized and treated (B/F/TAF n=330, SBR n=165): 32% cis women, 2% transgender women, median age 49 y (range 18-79), 10% had pre-existing M184V/I mutation (Table 1), and 62% lived in the US South. At W24, 1% (2/328) on B/F/TAF vs 2% (3/165) on SBR had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 c/mL (difference -1.2%; 95% CI -4.8% to 0.9%) demonstrating noninferiority of B/F/TAF; 2 with pre-existing primary INSTI resistance were excluded from analysis. 163 assigned to SBR completed W24 and switched to B/F/TAF (SBR to B/F/TAF). At W48 1% (3/328) originally randomized to B/F/TAF and 0 SBR to B/F/TAF had HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL (Table 2). The presence of baseline NRTI resistance did not affect the efficacy of B/F/TAF. No treatment emergent resistance was detected. The mean (SD) changes in CD4 were +7 cells/mm3 (189) for B/F/TAF and -8 cells/mm3 (159) for SBR to B/F/TAF. Median (IQR) weight increased 0.9 kg (-1.5, 4.1) and 0.6 kg (-1.0, 3.1) for B/F/TAF and SBR to B/F/TAF groups, respectively. Study drug-related AEs occurred in 10% of participants while on B/F/TAF; most were grade 1.

Table 1.

Conclusion

Switching to B/F/TAF was highly effective for Black adults regardless of baseline regimen or pre-existing NRTI resistance and was associated with few treatment related AEs or discontinuations.

Disclosures

Debbie Hagins, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Viiv Healthcare (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member) Princy Kumar, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Michael Saag, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Proteus (Grant/Research Support)Viiv Healthcare (Consultant, Grant/Research Support) Anson K. Wurapa, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)GlaxoSmithKline (Grant/Research Support)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support) Indira Brar, MD, Gilead (Speaker’s Bureau)janssen (Speaker’s Bureau)ViiV (Speaker’s Bureau) Daniel Berger, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Olayemi Osiyemi, M.D, GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)ViiV Healthcare (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau) Corrilynn Hileman, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator) Moti Ramgopal, MD FACP FIDSA, AbbVie (Speaker’s Bureau)Allergan (Speaker’s Bureau)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Speaker’s Bureau)Janssen (Speaker’s Bureau)Merck (Consultant)Viiv Healthcare (Consultant) Cheryl McDonald, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Speaker’s Bureau)Janssen (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Speaker’s Bureau)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support) Christiana Blair, MS, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Kristen Andreatta, MSc, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Sean E. Collins, MD, MS, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Hal Martin, MD, MPH, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)

476. Gilead Sciences’ Commitment to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

COVID-19 has spread rapidly: from the first case in Dec 2019, the declaration of a global pandemic in Mar 2020, to Jun 18, 2020 with >8 M confirmed cases and >400,000 deaths worldwide. Throughout this rapid spread, Gilead has focused on contributing antiviral expertise and resources to help patients (pts) and communities fighting COVID-19

Methods

Gilead is supporting the efforts of governments, partnering with professionals, and community-based org., and collaborating with healthcare providers to accelerate research and access to remdesivir (RDV), the first medicine with demonstrated efficacy in treatment of COVID-19. This is a review of the programs initiated in RDV research, access, research grants and collaborative education

Results

In Jan 2020 Gilead began working with government and regulatory authorities to make RDV accessible to pts globally through the compassionate use and expanded access programs. These programs has treated >2000 COVID-19 pts. By Feb 2020, several phase 3 randomized trials on RDV were initiated. Based on trials completed and published data (n= >2000), RDV was granted emergency use authorization in the US on May 1, 2020 with full approval in 5 countries thereafter and several under review elsewhere. Collectively there will be >12,000 pts enrolled in RDV clinical programs by Dec 2020.

Increasing manufacturing of RDV began at-risk in Jan 2020. By May 2020 Gilead has decreased production time, increased supply and committed to donating all its 1.5 M doses. Under the licensing agreements with generic drug manufacturers, RDV will be available in 127 countries upon approval.

Gilead has committed to supporting research grants to enhance the understanding of the clinical course and outcomes in vulnerable population, long-term sequelae, and evaluate real world safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 therapies.

Finally, Gilead has provided corporate grants to support the efforts of community-based orgs and public health entities to expand education on COVID-19

Conclusion

Gilead has initiated a global, multifaceted rapid response that reflects the unprecedented emergency posed by SARS-COV-2. This includes increasing RDV production, access, timely initiation of phase 3 RDV trials, and establishment of grants programs for community projects, research and education

Disclosures

EunYoung Lee, PharmD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Tram Tran, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Lauren Dau, PharmD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diogo Ferrinho, PharmD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) ChenYu Wang, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Kavita Juneja, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee)Gilead Sciences (Employee)

995. Safety and Efficacy of F/TAF and F/TDF for PrEP in DISCOVER Participants Taking F/TDF for PrEP at Baseline

Background

DISCOVER is an ongoing trial comparing emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF) for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). DISCOVER included some participants already taking F/TDF for PrEP at baseline (BL) creating a unique opportunity to study outcomes after switching from F/TDF to F/TAF.

Methods

Men who have sex with men and transgender women at risk of HIV were randomized to receive blinded daily F/TAF or F/TDF and followed for at least 96 weeks; participants taking BL F/TDF for PrEP could enroll without a washout period. Laboratory assessments included estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), markers of renal proximal tubular function (RBP and β2M to creatinine ratios), and fasting cholesterol levels; these were analyzed by 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test. Bone mineral density (BMD) was assessed in a subset of participants and analyzed by ANOVA.

Results

905 of 5387 (16.8%) participants were on BL F/TDF for PrEP for a median duration of 399 days; baseline characteristics are found in Table 1. There was one HIV infection among BL PrEP users, in a participant randomized to F/TDF who had intermittent low adherence. Participants on BL PrEP randomized to F/TAF had improvements in eGFR and markers of proximal tubular function compared to F/TDF. Median change in BMD was not statistically different for BL PrEP users assigned to F/TAF vs F/TDF, however de novo F/TAF participants had improved BMD profiles compared to F/TDF. BL PrEP users in the F/TAF arm had increases in LDL cholesterol (median +6mg/dL) compared to F/TDF, while changes in HDL and total:HDL ratio were similar. Lipid-modifying agent (LMA) initiation in BL PrEP users was more frequent in the F/TAF arm, while LMA initiation in de novo PrEP participants was similar between arms (Table 2).

Table 1. Characteristics of DISCOVER participants

Conclusion

HIV incidence was low in participants taking BL PrEP. Participants who switched from F/TDF to F/TAF had improvements in renal biomarkers. There was no statistical difference in BMD among BL PrEP users, although numbers were small. The observed lipid changes in BL PrEP users are consistent with the LDL and HDL suppressive effect of TDF, and the small but higher rate of LMA initiation with F/TAF is likely related to withdrawal of this effect.

Disclosures

Thomas Campbell, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Amanda Clarke, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Other Financial or Material Support, Conference attendance sponsorship)Viiv Healthcare (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Conference travel sponsorship) Benoit Trottier, MD, AbbVie (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Christoph C. Carter, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Yongwu Shao, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Ramin Ebrahimi, MSc, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Moupali Das, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Jay Gladstein, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

548. Baseline characteristics associated with clinical improvement and mortality in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19

Background

Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Here we report baseline characteristics associated with clinical improvement at day (d) 14.

Methods

We enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation &gt;94% on room air, and radiological evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 5d or 10d of intravenous RDV once daily plus standard of care (SoC), or SoC only. For this analysis, patients were followed through discharge, d14, or death. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics associated with clinical improvement in oxygen support (≥2-point improvement on a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from discharge to death) were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression methods.

Results

584 patients were randomized and treated (5/10d RDV, n=384; SoC: n=200). 159 (27%) were ≥65y, 227 (39%) female, 328 (61%) white, 102 (19%) Asian, and 99 (19%) Black. 252 participants (43%) were enrolled in Europe, 260 (45%) North America (NA), and 72 (12%) in Asia. Most patients (483 [83%]) were not on supplemental oxygen but required medical care at baseline. In a multivariable model, 5/10d RDV was significantly positively associated with clinical improvement (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.69, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.65; p=0.0226). Significant covariables positively associated with clinical improvement included age &lt; 65y (p&lt; 0.0001) and region of treatment (Europe and NA vs Asia, p&lt; 0.0001 each; Table); other examined factors were not significantly associated with clinical improvement, including gender, race, ethnicity, baseline oxygen support, duration of symptoms and hospitalization, obesity, and baseline transaminase levels.

Table 1.

Conclusion

In moderate COVID-19 patients, after adjusting for treatment arm, age &lt; 65y and region (NA vs Asia; Europe vs Asia) were associated with higher rates of clinical improvement. These observations recapitulate younger age as positive prognostic factor, and highlight the differences in the impact of the pandemic globally.

Disclosures

Antonella Castagna, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Shu Cheong Hui, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Kathleen M. Mullane, DO, PharmD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator) Mamta Jain, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support) Massimo Galli, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Shan-Chwen Chang, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Huyen Cao, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Hailin Huang, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Christoph Lübbert, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Judith A. Aberg, MD, Theratechnology (Consultant) Enrique Navas Elorza, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Karen T. Tashima, MD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Research Grant or Support)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)GlaxoSmithKline (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Tibotec (Research Grant or Support)Viiv Healthcare (Research Grant or Support) Mark McPhail, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

1002. A Daily Single Tablet Regimen (STR) of Bictegravir/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir Alafenamide (B/F/TAF) in Virologically-Suppressed Adults Living with HIV and End Stage Renal Disease on Chronic Hemodialysis

Background

Treatment for people living with HIV (PLWH) and end stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD) has previously required complex dose-adjusted regimens. We evaluated a daily regimen of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF) and established this treatment as effective and safe, showing that daily TAF resulted in lower plasma tenofovir exposure than a historical comparison of once weekly tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in patients with ESRD on HD. After week (W) 96, participants transitioned to daily B/F/TAF to assess whether efficacy and safety would be maintained on this STR that is guidelines-recommended for PLWH with eGFR > 30 mL/min.

Methods

Virologically suppressed adult PLWH with ESRD on chronic HD who completed W96 on E/C/F/TAF enrolled in the B/F/TAF extension for 48 weeks. Efficacy was assessed as the proportion of participants with virologic suppression (HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL). Safety was assessed throughout the study, PK was assessed using sparse sampling at W4, 24 and 48.

Results

55 enrolled, 36 completed E/C/F/TAF, 10 entered the B/F/TAF extension. The median age was 55 yrs (range 34-63); median time on HD was 4 yrs (range 2-16). All ten participants on B/F/TAF had HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL (95% CI 69%, 100%) at W48. All participants had at least 1 adverse event (AE); most were grade 1 or 2 in severity. One participant had a grade 3 AE and 3 had serious AEs; none were considered related to study drug by the investigator. One participant had AEs attributed to study drug (malaise grade 1 and nausea grade 2), which resolved and did not lead to discontinuation of study drug. There were no clinically relevant changes in fasting lipids. In participants with evaluable data (n=2-5 per timepoint), mean bictegravir trough concentrations were lower compared to PLWH not on HD but remained 4- to 7-fold higher than the established protein-adjusted 95% effective concentration (paEC₉₅) of 162 ng/mL against wild-type virus.

Conclusion

A once daily regimen of B/F/TAF maintained virologic suppression in PLWH on chronic HD. B/F/TAF was well-tolerated with no discontinuations. B/F/TAF may be an effective, safe and convenient once daily STR and ameliorate the need for dose adjustment in appropriate PLWH who require chronic HD.

Disclosures

Joseph J. Eron, MD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Janssen (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Consultant)ViiV Healthcare (Consultant, Research Grant or Support) Aimee Wilkin, MD, MPH, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)GlaxoSmithKline (Grant/Research Support)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support) Moti Ramgopal, MD FACP FIDSA, AbbVie (Speaker’s Bureau)Allergan (Speaker’s Bureau)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Speaker’s Bureau)Janssen (Speaker’s Bureau)Merck (Consultant)Viiv Healthcare (Consultant) Olayemi Osiyemi, M.D, GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)ViiV Healthcare (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau) Jihad Slim, MD, Abbvie (Speaker’s Bureau)Gilead (Speaker’s Bureau)Jansen (Speaker’s Bureau)Merck (Speaker’s Bureau)ViiV (Speaker’s Bureau) David Asmuth, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Edwin DeJesus, MD, Gilead Sciences (Advisor or Review Panel member) Polina German, PharmD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Christiana Blair, MS, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Christoph C. Carter, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Sean E. Collins, MD, MS, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Hal Martin, MD, MPH, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)

Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is an RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity in vitro and efficacy in animal models of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, and radiologic evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous remdesivir for either 5 days or 10 days. All patients received 200 mg of remdesivir on day 1 and 100 mg once daily on subsequent days. The primary end point was clinical status on day 14, assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

RESULTS

In total, 397 patients underwent randomization and began treatment (200 patients for 5 days and 197 for 10 days). The median duration of treatment was 5 days (interquartile range, 5 to 5) in the 5-day group and 9 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10) in the 10-day group. At baseline, patients randomly assigned to the 10-day group had significantly worse clinical status than those assigned to the 5-day group (P = 0.02). By day 14, a clinical improvement of 2 points or more on the ordinal scale occurred in 64% of patients in the 5-day group and in 54% in the 10-day group. After adjustment for baseline clinical status, patients in the 10-day group had a distribution in clinical status at day 14 that was similar to that among patients in the 5-day group (P = 0.14). The most common adverse events were nausea (9% of patients), worsening respiratory failure (8%), elevated alanine aminotransferase level (7%), and constipation (7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe Covid-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, our trial did not show a significant difference between a 5-day course and a 10-day course of remdesivir. With no placebo control, however, the magnitude of benefit cannot be determined. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; GS-US-540-5773 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04292899.).

Compassionate Use of Remdesivir in Pregnant Women with Severe Covid-19

Background

Remdesivir is efficacious for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults, but data in pregnant women are limited. We describe outcomes in the first 86 pregnant women with severe COVID-19 who were treated with remdesivir.

Methods

The reported data span 21 March to 16 June 2020 for hospitalized pregnant women with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and room air oxygen saturation ≤94% whose clinicians requested remdesivir through the compassionate use program. The intended remdesivir treatment course was 10 days (200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg for days 2–10, given intravenously).

Results

Nineteen of 86 women delivered before their first dose and were reclassified as immediate “postpartum” (median postpartum day 1 [range, 0–3]). At baseline, 40% of pregnant women (median gestational age, 28 weeks) required invasive ventilation, in contrast to 95% of postpartum women (median gestational age at delivery 30 weeks). By day 28 of follow-up, the level of oxygen requirement decreased in 96% and 89% of pregnant and postpartum women, respectively. Among pregnant women, 93% of those on mechanical ventilation were extubated, 93% recovered, and 90% were discharged. Among postpartum women, 89% were extubated, 89% recovered, and 84% were discharged. Remdesivir was well tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse events (AEs) (16%). Most AEs were related to pregnancy and underlying disease; most laboratory abnormalities were grade 1 or 2. There was 1 maternal death attributed to underlying disease and no neonatal deaths.

Conclusions

Among 86 pregnant and postpartum women with severe COVID-19 who received compassionate-use remdesivir, recovery rates were high, with a low rate of serious AEs.

Effect of Remdesivir vs Standard Care on Clinical Status at 11 Days in Patients With Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Remdesivir demonstrated clinical benefit in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in patients with moderate disease is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of 5 or 10 days of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care on clinical status on day 11 after initiation of treatment.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, open-label trial of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (pulmonary infiltrates and room-air oxygen saturation >94%) enrolled from March 15 through April 18, 2020, at 105 hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 10-day course of remdesivir (n = 197), a 5-day course of remdesivir (n = 199), or standard care (n = 200). Remdesivir was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg/d.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was clinical status on day 11 on a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharged (category 7). Differences between remdesivir treatment groups and standard care were calculated using proportional odds models and expressed as odds ratios. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates difference in clinical status distribution toward category 7 for the remdesivir group vs the standard care group.

RESULTS

Among 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group. On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02). The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different (P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292730.

Fixed-dose combination bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus dolutegravir-containing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: week 144 results from two randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trials

BACKGROUND

In the primary week-48 analyses of two phase 3 studies, coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to a dolutegravir-containing regimen in treatment-naive people with HIV. We report week-144 efficacy and safety results from these studies.

METHODS

We did two double-blind, active-controlled studies (now in open-label extension phase). Study 1 randomly assigned (1:1) HLA-B*5701-negative adults without hepatitis B virus co-infection to receive coformulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg, or coformulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300 mg once daily. Study 2 randomly assigned (1:1) adults to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, or dolutegravir 50 mg given with coformulated emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg. We previously reported non-inferiority at the primary endpoint. Here, we report the week-144 secondary outcome of proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 144, by US Food and Drug Administration Snapshot algorithm, analysed in the same manner. These studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02607930 and NCT02607956.

FINDINGS

629 participants were randomly assigned and treated in study 1 (314 to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, and 315 to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine) and 645 in study 2 (327 to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, 325 to dolutegravir, emtricitabine, tenofovir alafenamide). At week 144, bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to both dolutegravir-containing regimens for efficacy. In study 1, 256 (82%) of 314 participants had plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 265 (84%) of 315 in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (difference -2·6%, 95% CI -8·5 to 3·4). In study 2, 262 (82%) of 320 participants had plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 273 (84%) of 325 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group (difference -1·9%, -7·8 to 3·9). In both studies, no participant had treatment-emergent resistance to study drugs up to week 144. All treatment regimens were well tolerated with additional exposure. Adverse events that led to study drug discontinuation were reported for no participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group versus five (2%) of 315 in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (study 1), and six (2%) of 320 in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus six (2%) of 325 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group (study 2). In study 1, statistically significant differences were observed in median changes from baseline in fasting total cholesterol (14 mg/dL vs 10 mg/dL; p=0·034), direct LDL (21 mg/dL vs 14 mg/dL; p=0·004), and total cholesterol to HDL ratio (-0·1 vs -0·3; p=0·007) at week 144; no differences were observed between groups in study 2. Weight gain was seen across all treatment groups in both studies, with no differences in median changes from baseline in weight at week 144 for either study.

INTERPRETATION

These long-term data support the use of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide as a safe, well tolerated, and durable treatment for people with HIV, with no emergent resistance.

FUNDING

Gilead Sciences.

Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide vs emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (DISCOVER): primary results from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Tenofovir alafenamide shows high antiviral efficacy and improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate when used for HIV treatment. Here, we report primary results from a blinded phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide versus emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention.

METHODS

This study is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 94 community, public health, and hospital-associated clinics located in regions of Europe and North America, where there is a high incidence of HIV or prevalence of people living with HIV, or both. We enrolled adult cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women who have sex with men, both with a high risk of acquiring HIV on the basis of their self-reported sexual behaviour in the past 12 weeks or their recent history (within 24 weeks of enrolment) of bacterial sexually transmitted infections. Participants with current or previous use of PrEP with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were not excluded. We used a computer-generated random allocation sequence to randomly assign (1:1) participants to receive either emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group), or emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). As such, all participants were given two tablets. The trial sponsor, investigators, participants, and the study staff who provided the study drugs, assessed the outcomes, and collected the data were masked to group assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was incident HIV infection, which was assessed when all participants had completed 48 weeks of follow-up and half of all participants had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. This full analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug and had at least one post-baseline HIV test. Non-inferiority of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was established if the upper bound of the 95·003% CI of the HIV incidence rate ratio (IRR) was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62. We prespecified six secondary bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints to evaluate using the safety analysis set. This analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02842086, and is no longer recruiting.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 13, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 5387 (92%) of 5857 participants were randomly assigned and received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (n=2694) or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=2693). At the time of the primary efficacy analysis (ie, when all participants had completed 48 weeks and 50% had completed 96 weeks) emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the IRR, was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62 (IRR 0·47 [95% CI 0·19-1·15]). After 8756 person-years of follow-up, 22 participants were diagnosed with HIV, seven participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group (0·16 infections per 100 person-years [95% CI 0·06-0·33]), and 15 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (0·34 infections per 100 person-years [0·19-0·56]). Both regimens were well tolerated, with a low number of participants reporting adverse events that led to discontinuation of the study drug (36 [1%] of 2694 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group vs 49 [2%] of 2693 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was superior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in all six prespecified bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints.

INTERPRETATION

Daily emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide shows non-inferior efficacy to daily emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, and the number of adverse events for both regimens was low. Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide had more favourable effects on bone mineral density and biomarkers of renal safety than emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

FUNDING

Gilead Sciences.

Remdesivir for Severe COVID-19 versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care

Background

We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care.

Methods

GS-US-540–5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540–5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality.

Results

After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34–3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: .22–.68, P = .001).

Conclusions

In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19.

Clinical Trials Registration

NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir, a nucleotide analogue prodrug that inhibits viral RNA polymerases, has shown in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We provided remdesivir on a compassionate-use basis to patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the illness caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2. Patients were those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or who were receiving oxygen support. Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment. This report is based on data from patients who received remdesivir during the period from January 25, 2020, through March 7, 2020, and have clinical data for at least 1 subsequent day.

RESULTS

Of the 61 patients who received at least one dose of remdesivir, data from 8 could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no post-treatment data and 1 with a dosing error). Of the 53 patients whose data were analyzed, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan. At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 of 30 patients (57%) receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated. A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of patients hospitalized for severe Covid-19 who were treated with compassionate-use remdesivir, clinical improvement was observed in 36 of 53 patients (68%). Measurement of efficacy will require ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trials of remdesivir therapy. (Funded by Gilead Sciences.).

Sofosbuvir plus ribavirin and sofosbuvir plus ledipasvir in patients with genotype 1 or 3 hepatitis C virus and severe renal impairment: a multicentre, phase 2b, non-randomised, open-label study

BACKGROUND

There is a medical need for highly effective, safe, and well tolerated treatments for patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) with severe renal impairment. We investigated the safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir with ribavirin or ledipasvir combined with sofosbuvir in a prospective study of patients with genotype 1 or 3 HCV infection and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease (creatinine clearance by Cockcroft-Gault ≤30 mL/min) who were not on dialysis.

METHODS

This phase 2b, open-label, non-randomised, multicentre study in the USA and New Zealand investigated three sequentially enrolled cohorts of patients. Patients were recruited from ten hospitals and clinical research centres and were included if they had genotype 1 or 3 HCV infection, a creatinine clearance less than or equal to 30 mL/min, and were not on dialysis. In cohorts 1 and 2, patients received sofosbuvir (200 mg in cohort 1 and 400 mg in cohort 2) plus ribavirin 200 mg once per day for 24 weeks. In cohort 3, 18 patients received ledipasvir combined with sofosbuvir (90 mg ledipasvir and 400 mg sofosbuvir) once per day for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12). Safety and pharmacokinetic data were also collected. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01958281, and is completed.

FINDINGS

This study was done between Oct 7, 2013, and Oct 29, 2017. In the sofosbuvir plus ribavirin cohorts, 32 patients were screened, of whom 20 were enrolled and assessed for efficacy and safety (ten patients in each cohort). In the ledipasvir plus sofosbuvir cohort, 33 patients were screened, of whom 18 were enrolled and assessed for treatment efficacy and safety. Four (40%, 95% CI 12-74) of ten patients in cohort 1 and six (60%, 26-88) of ten patients in cohort 2 achieved SVR12. All 18 (100%, 82-100) patients in cohort 3 achieved SVR12. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity. The most commonly reported adverse events overall were headache (eight [21%] of 38 patients), anaemia (seven [18%] of 38 patients), and fatigue (six [16%] of 38 patients). Eight patients had serious adverse events, none of which were treatment related. There were no treatment-related cardiac events or clinically significant changes in echocardiographic parameters or creatinine clearance by Cockcroft-Gault.

INTERPRETATION

In this phase 2b study, ledipasvir combined with sofosbuvir for 12 weeks was safe and effective in patients with genotype 1 HCV infection and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease who were not on dialysis.

FUNDING

Gilead Sciences.

Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir for 12 Weeks in Children 3 to <6 Years Old With Chronic Hepatitis C

For children under 12 years of age who have chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, there are currently no approved treatments with direct-acting antiviral agents. We therefore evaluated the safety and efficacy of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir in HCV-infected children aged 3 to <6 years. In an open-label study, patients 3 to <6 years old chronically infected with HCV genotype 1 (n = 33) or 4 (n = 1) received weight-based doses of combined ledipasvir-sofosbuvir as granules (33.75 mg/150 mg for weights <17 kg or 45 mg/200 mg for weights ≥17 kg) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was sustained virological response 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12). For the first 14 patients, intensive pharmacokinetic sampling was done on day 10 of treatment. All patients had been infected through perinatal transmission and were treatment naïve. No patients had known cirrhosis. Ten patients (29%) weighed <17 kg. SVR12 was achieved in 97% of patients (33 of 34); the patient who did not achieve SVR12 was 3 years old and discontinued treatment after 5 days because of an adverse event "abnormal drug taste." The most common adverse events were vomiting (24% of patients), cough (21%), and pyrexia (21%). No patients experienced a serious adverse event. Intensive pharmacokinetic analysis of 13 patients for whom data were evaluable confirmed that the doses selected were appropriate. Conclusion: Ledipasvir-sofosbuvir was well tolerated and highly effective in children 3 to <6 years old with chronic HCV infection.

Sofosbuvir and Ribavirin Therapy for Children Aged 3 to <12 Years With Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 2 or 3 Infection

Currently, the only approved hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment for children aged <12 years is pegylated interferon plus ribavirin. In an open-label study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks in children aged 3 to <12 years chronically infected with genotype 2 or for 24 weeks in patients with genotype 3. Patients aged 3 to <6 years weighing <17 kg received sofosbuvir 150 mg, and patients aged 3 to <6 years weighing ≥17 kg and all patients aged 6 to <12 years received sofosbuvir 200 mg once daily. Intensive pharmacokinetic sampling conducted in each age group confirmed the appropriateness of sofosbuvir doses. For all patients, ribavirin dosing was determined by baseline weight (up to 1,400 mg/day, two divided doses). The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after therapy (SVR12). Fifty-four patients were enrolled (41 aged 6 to <12 years and 13 aged 3 to <6 years). Most were treatment naïve (98%) and infected perinatally (94%). All but one patient achieved SVR12 (53/54, 98%; 95% confidence interval, 90%-100%). The patient who did not achieve SVR12 was a 4-year-old who discontinued treatment after 3 days because of "abnormal drug taste." The most commonly reported adverse events in patients aged 6 to <12 years were vomiting (32%) and headache (29%), and those in patients aged 3 to <6 years were vomiting (46%) and diarrhea (39%). One 3-year-old patient had a serious adverse event of accidental ribavirin overdose requiring hospitalization for monitoring; this patient completed treatment and achieved SVR12. Conclusion: Sofosbuvir plus ribavirin was well tolerated and highly effective in children aged 3 to <12 years with chronic HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection.

Drug-Drug Interaction Studies Between Hepatitis C Virus Antivirals Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir and Boosted and Unboosted Human Immunodeficiency Virus Antiretroviral Regimens in Healthy Volunteers

Background

Combining antiviral regimens in the hepatitis C virus (HCV)/human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-coinfected population can be complex as they share overlapping mechanisms for elimination that may result in drug interactions. The pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) with multiple antiretroviral (ARV) regimens were evaluated.

Methods

Healthy volunteers were enrolled into 2 phase 1, open-label, randomized, multiple-dose, cross-over studies. SOF/VEL and ARV regimens were administered alone and in combination; ARVs (and pharmacokinetic enhancers) included atazanavir (ATV), cobicistat (COBI), darunavir (DRV), dolutegravir (DTG), efavirenz (EFV), elvitegravir (EVG), emtricitabine (FTC), lopinavir (LPV), raltegravir (RAL), rilpivirine (RPV), ritonavir (RTV), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Geometric least squares means ratios (coadministration:alone) and 90% confidence intervals were constructed for area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the dosing interval, maximum concentration, and trough, for all analytes. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated.

Results

In total, 237 participants were enrolled. No clinically relevant differences in the pharmacokinetics (PK) of SOF, SOF metabolite GS-331007, or VEL were observed other than an approximate 50% decrease in VEL exposure when administered with EFV/FTC/TDF. No clinically relevant differences in the PK of ARVs were observed when administered with SOF/VEL. Study treatments were well tolerated, including no observed creatinine clearance changes during evaluation of TDF-containing regimens.

Conclusions

SOF/VEL and ARV regimens including ATV, COBI, DRV, DTG, EVG, FTC, LPV, RAL, RPV, RTV, TAF, or TDF may be coadministered without dose adjustment. Use of SOF/VEL with EFV-containing regimens is not recommended due to an approximate 50% reduction in VEL exposure.

318. Tenofovir Alafenamide (TAF) vs. Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) in Hispanic/Latinx and Black Participants: Efficacy, Bone and Renal Safety Results from a Pooled Analysis of 7 Clinical Trials

Background

People of color are underrepresented in clinical trials. TAF has shown improved renal and bone safety vs. TDF. We pooled 7 studies to evaluate efficacy/safety of TAF vs. TDF for ART initiation/switch in Hispanic/Latinx and Black participants.

Methods

Data from Hispanic/Latinx and Black adults who initiated/switched to TAF or TDF in 7 randomized trials (2 treatment-naïve, 5 suppressed switch) were analyzed. TAF-based regimens (elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine [FTC]/TAF, rilpivirine/FTC/TAF, FTC/TAF, or bictegravir/FTC/TAF) were compared with TDF-based regimens. Virologic suppression (VS; HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL, FDA snapshot) and % change in bone mineral density (BMD) and renal tubular biomarkers urine β-2-microglobulin (B2M):creatinine (Cr) ratio and retinol binding protein (RBP):Cr ratio are reported at W96.

Results

The pooled population (N = 5,825) included 1138 Hispanic/Latinx and 1324 Black participants. Treatment-naïve participants (n = 1,733) were 15% female, 25% Black, 19% Hispanic/Latino, with median age 34 years, HIV-1 RNA 4.6 log₁₀ c/mL, CD4 405 cells/mm³. Switch participants (n = 4,092) were 13% female, 22% Black, 20% Hispanic/Latino, median age 45 years, CD4 653 cells/mm³. There was no difference in VS rate with TAF vs. TDF in any group. VS rate (TAF vs. TDF) in naïve participants: 88% vs. 84% (Hispanic/Latinx); 78 vs. 79% (Black); 87% vs. 85% (overall). VS (TAF vs. TDF) was well maintained in switch participants: 91% both arms (Hispanic/Latinx); 86% vs. 87% (Black); 90% vs. 88% (overall). TAF and TDF were well tolerated with few discontinuations due to adverse events (0.6–2%) in all groups. At W96 there was less impact on renal biomarkers in all groups initiating TAF (P < 0.001; table), and decreases in BMD were smaller (P < 0.005; table) vs. TDF. All groups switching from TDF to TAF experienced decreases in tubular proteinuria and improvements in BMD (both P < 0.001; table) at W96.

Conclusion

Hispanic/Latinx and Black participants who initiated/switched to TAF had significantly improved bone and renal parameters vs. TDF, with similar VS rates at W96. Efficacy and biomarkers were similar to the overall study population. These data in >2,400 Hispanic/Latinx and Black PLH demonstrate noninferior efficacy and safety advantages with TAF vs. TDF.

Disclosures

All authors: No reported disclosures.

1962. Renal Outcomes for Participants Taking F/TAF vs. F/TDF for HIV PrEP in the DISCOVER Trial

Background

In the DISCOVER PrEP trial, emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) was noninferior to emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF) for HIV prevention. Here, we report on the renal outcomes of F/TAF and F/TDF among all DISCOVER participants and in those on baseline F/TDF PrEP who were randomized to F/TAF.

Methods

In total, 5387 men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) at risk for HIV were randomized 1:1 to receive blinded F/TDF or F/TAF taken once daily (full cohort). Of these, 905 were on F/TDF PrEP at enrollment; of whom, 465 were randomized to F/TAF. Renal function and safety assessments included urinalysis (UA), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR_CG), urine protein:creatinine (Cr) ratio (UPCR), markers of proximal tubular function (β2-microglobulin:Cr ratio [β2M:Cr] and retinol-binding protein:Cr ratio [RBP:Cr]) and investigator-reported renal adverse events (AEs). Week 48 data are presented.

Results

In the full cohort, F/TAF was associated with more favorable changes in eGFR_CG, β2M:Cr, and RBP:Cr compared with F/TDF (Table 1). Treatment-emergent proteinuria by UA was more common with F/TDF than F/TAF (24.3% vs. 21.3% P = 0.009), as were treatment-emergent elevations in UPCR >200 mg/g (35 [1.5%] vs. 16 [0.7%], P = 0.005). Compared with F/TDF, participants taking F/TAF had numerically fewer study drug-related renal AEs, severe study drug-related renal AEs, and discontinuations due to renal AEs (Table 2). Proximal renal tubulopathy (Fanconi syndrome) was reported in one participant in the F/TDF arm and none in the F/TAF arm. In participants on F/TDF PrEP at enrollment who were randomized to F/TAF, statistically significant increases in eGFR_CG were apparent as early as week 4 (Table 1 and Figure 1), as were decreases in tubular proteinuria (Table 1). Renal biomarker changes in PrEP-naïve participants mirrored those in the full cohort.

Conclusion

Through 48 weeks, MSM and TGW taking F/TAF for PrEP had significantly better measures of renal function and fewer study-drug-related renal AEs compared with those taking F/TDF; switching from F/TDF to F/TAF was associated with improvements in eGFR_CG and tubular function biomarkers. F/TAF for PrEP is effective and has a superior renal safety profile compared with F/TDF.

Disclosures

All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

2490. Longer-Term Safety and Efficacy of Elvitegravir/Cobicistat/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir Alafenamide in Virologically Suppressed Adults Living With HIV and End-Stage Renal Disease on Chronic Hemodialysis

Background

HIV treatment for individuals with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD) has previously required complex dose-adjusted regimens. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of single-tablet, once-daily elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF) in people living with HIV (PLH) and ESRD on chronic HD.

Methods

Virologically suppressed adult PLH with ESRD on chronic HD for ≥ 6 months were switched to open-label E/C/F/TAF 150/150/200/10 mg once daily for 96 weeks. Efficacy was assessed as the proportion of participants who maintained virologic suppression (HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL) using the snapshot algorithm. Safety and participant satisfaction were assessed throughout the study.

Results

We enrolled 55 participants with median age 51 years (range 23–64) with median time on HD 6 years (range 1–17). In the per protocol analysis set, virologic suppression was maintained in 30 of 31 participants (96.8%, 95% CI [83.3%, 99.9%]) at week 96. In the full analysis set, virologic suppression was maintained in 30 of 55 participants (54.5%; 95% CI [40.6%, 68.0%]); one discontinued therapy due to lack of efficacy, and W96 data were unavailable for 24. Of the 24 participants lacking W96 data, 17 discontinued study drug early and 7 had missing data while on study drug; all had HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL at the last pre-week 96 check. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 53 (96.4%) participants, and study-drug-related AEs occurred in 7 (12.7%). Treatment-emergent AEs leading to premature study drug discontinuation occurred in 4 (7.3%) participants; two were considered study-drug-related (allergic pruritus and peripheral neuropathy in one participant each). No study-drug-related serious AEs were observed. 85.7% (30/35) of responding participants reported they were ‘much more satisfied’ with their regimen.

Conclusion

Single-tablet, once-daily E/C/F/TAF was effective in maintaining virologic suppression in PLH on chronic HD over 96 weeks of follow-up. E/C/F/TAF was well tolerated and was associated with improved participant satisfaction. These data demonstrate that E/C/F/TAF is a safe and effective alternative to more complicated regimens in PLH on chronic HD, with the potential to improve patient satisfaction and quality of life.

Disclosures

All authors: No reported disclosures.

Effects of sofosbuvir-based hepatitis C treatment on the pharmacokinetics of tenofovir in HIV/HCV-coinfected individuals receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate

Background

The nucleotide analogues tenofovir and sofosbuvir are considered to have low potential for drug interactions.

Objectives

To determine the effect of sofosbuvir-based HCV treatment on plasma concentrations of tenofovir and cellular concentrations of tenofovir diphosphate.

Methods

HIV-infected participants with acute HCV were treated for 12 weeks with sofosbuvir + ribavirin in Cohort 1 or 8 weeks with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in Cohort 2 of AIDS Clinical Trials Group study 5327. Only participants taking tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were included in this analysis. Tenofovir in plasma, tenofovir diphosphate in dried blood spots and tenofovir diphosphate in PBMCs were measured pre-HCV therapy and longitudinally during the study using validated LC/MS-MS.

Results

Fifteen and 22 men completed Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. In Cohort 1, tenofovir diphosphate was 4.3-fold higher (95% CI geometric mean ratio 2.46-7.67; P = 0.0001) in dried blood spots and 2.3-fold higher (95% CI 1.09-4.92; P = 0.03) in PBMCs following 12 weeks of sofosbuvir + ribavirin versus study entry. Tenofovir in the plasma was unchanged. In Cohort 2, tenofovir diphosphate was 17.8-fold higher (95% CI 12.77-24.86; P < 0.0001) in dried blood spots after 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir versus study entry. Tenofovir plasma concentrations were 2.1-fold higher (95% CI 1.44-2.91; P = 0.0005). Despite the increase in cellular tenofovir diphosphate concentrations, only a small decline in CLCR (6%-7%) was observed in both cohorts between study entry and end of treatment.

Conclusions

These data indicate an unexpected drug interaction with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and sofosbuvir at the cellular level. Additional studies are needed to determine the mechanism and clinical significance.

Drug-Drug Interaction Profile of the Fixed-Dose Combination Tablet Regimen Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir

Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Harvoni^®), a fixed-dose combination tablet of an NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir and an NS5B polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir, is approved for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir exhibits a favorable drug-drug interaction profile and can be administered with various medications that may be used by hepatitis C virus-infected patients, including patients with comorbidities, such as co-infection with human immunodeficiency virus or immunosuppression following liver transplantation. Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir is not expected to act as a victim or perpetrator of cytochrome P450- or UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1-mediated drug-drug interactions. With the exception of strong inducers of P-glycoprotein, such as rifampin, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir is not expected to act as a victim of clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. As a perpetrator of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions via P-glycoprotein/BCRP, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir should not be used with rosuvastatin and elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, whereas its co-administration with amiodarone is not recommended because of a pharmacodynamic interaction. This review summarizes a number of drug interaction studies conducted in support of the clinical development of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir.

Deferred treatment with a fixed-dose combination of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir for chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1, 2, 4 and 6 infection

Sofosbuvir-velpatasvir is approved for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. In this single-arm, open-label, phase 3, deferred treatment study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir among patients randomized to the placebo group in the ASTRAL-1 study. Patients received sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (400/100 mg) once daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with sustained virologic response 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12). The primary safety endpoint was any adverse events (AEs) leading to the permanent discontinuation of study drug. Overall, 108/111 (97%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 92%-99%) achieved SVR12, and only one patient had virological failure. SVR12 was achieved by 61/63 (97%, 95%CI, 89%-100%) genotype 1 patients, 20/20 (100%; 95%CI, 83%-100%) with genotype 2, 19/19 (100%; 95%CI, 82%-100%) with genotype 4 and 8/9 (89%; 95% CI, 52%-100%) with genotype 6. All (19/19; 95%CI, 82-100) patients with cirrhosis and all (31/31, 95%CI, 89-100) with prior treatment experience achieved SVR12. The safety profile during treatment was similar to that observed in patients receiving placebo treatment. The most common AEs were headache, fatigue and nausea. One patient (1%) discontinued treatment due to an AE of gallbladder carcinoma, which was not considered related to treatment. Of five reported serious AEs, none were considered related to study drug. Sofosbuvir-velpatasvir for 12 weeks was effective and well tolerated among untreated and previously treated patients with HCV genotype 1, 2, 4 or 6 infection, including those with compensated cirrhosis (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02346721).

Characterization of HCV resistance from a 3-day monotherapy study of voxilaprevir, a novel pangenotypic NS3/4A protease inhibitor

BACKGROUND

Voxilaprevir (VOX; GS-9857) is a pangenotypic HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor (PI) with potent antiviral activity against HCV genotypes (GTs) 1-6 and improved coverage of GT1 NS3 resistance-associated substitutions (RAS) associated with other HCV PIs. In a 3-day Phase Ib monotherapy study in patients infected with HCV GT1a, 1b, 2, 3 and 4, VOX was well-tolerated and resulted in maximal mean viral load reduction >3 log₁₀ IU/ml at the 100 mg dose across all genotypes evaluated. This report characterizes the HCV NS3 RAS in the study.

METHODS

The NS3 gene was amplified and successfully deep sequenced using MiSeq for 66 patients at baseline and 61 patients post-baseline using 15% and 1% assay cutoffs.

RESULTS

With a 15% assay cutoff, pretreatment HCV NS3 RAS were present in the HCV of 38% (9/24) of patients with GT1a and 5% (1/19) with GT3a; there were no pretreatment NS3 RAS present in patients with GT1b (n=6), GT2 (n=7) or GT4 (n=4). In patients with and without pretreatment NS3 RAS, ≥3.4 log₁₀ mean maximal viral load reductions over 3 days of VOX administration were observed. The majority of patients did not have detectable treatment-emergent NS3 RAS and only 12% (7/53) and 26% (14/53) had emergent NS3 RAS using 15% and 1% cutoffs, respectively. No NS3 RAS were detected in patients with GT2 or GT4. A156T or A156V were the most prevalent emergent NS3 RAS in patients with GT1a or GT1b infection, but were not observed in patients with GT3 infection.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of selection of NS3 RAS in the majority of patients demonstrates a high resistance barrier for VOX. ClinicalTrails.gov identifier NCT02185794.

Long-term persistence of HCV NS5A resistance-associated substitutions after treatment with the HCV NS5A inhibitor, ledipasvir, without sofosbuvir

BACKGROUND

Data on persistence of NS5A resistance-associated substitutions (RASs) may have implications for resistance testing approaches and selection of initial and retreatment strategies.

METHODS

Long-term persistence of NS5A RASs in HCV genotype (GT) 1 infected subjects (n=76) who did not achieve sustained virological response after receiving ledipasvir (LDV) without sofosbuvir (SOF) and were subsequently enrolled in an ongoing 3-year follow-up registry study was investigated by population or deep sequencing.

RESULTS

Of the 76 subjects enrolled, 67 and 9 subjects had GT1a and GT1b infection, respectively. At pretreatment, NS5A RASs were detected in 14% of subjects (11/76) by population sequencing, with three subjects having >1 RAS. All RASs that were detected at pretreatment persisted and were observed at the 96 week visit in the follow-up study (FU96). For the remaining subjects with no detectable RASs at pretreatment, RASs were detected in 98% (63/64) of subjects at virological failure in the parent study and persisted at detectable levels through FU96 in 86% of subjects by deep sequencing (1% cutoff). However, a decline in the quasispecies frequency of most RASs and the number of RASs per subject was observed over time. Phenotypic analysis demonstrated that the majority of NS5A RASs confer similar levels of resistance to LDV and daclatasvir.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of NS5A RASs can persist at detectable levels for >96 weeks post-treatment in subjects who failed treatment with regimens containing an NS5A inhibitor without SOF, suggesting relatively high fitness of NS5A RASs even in the absence of drug pressure.

Adaptation of hepatitis C virus to interferon lambda polymorphism across multiple viral genotypes

Genetic polymorphism in the interferon lambda (IFN-λ) region is associated with spontaneous clearance of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and response to interferon-based treatment. Here, we evaluate associations between IFN-λ polymorphism and HCV variation in 8729 patients (Europeans 77%, Asians 13%, Africans 8%) infected with various viral genotypes, predominantly 1a (41%), 1b (22%) and 3a (21%). We searched for associations between rs12979860 genotype and variants in the NS3, NS4A, NS5A and NS5B HCV proteins. We report multiple associations in all tested proteins, including in the interferon-sensitivity determining region of NS5A. We also assessed the combined impact of human and HCV variation on pretreatment viral load and report amino acids associated with both IFN-λ polymorphism and HCV load across multiple viral genotypes. By demonstrating that IFN-λ variation leaves a large footprint on the viral proteome, we provide evidence of pervasive viral adaptation to innate immune pressure during chronic HCV infection.

Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir for 8 Weeks to Treat Acute Hepatitis C Virus Infections in Men With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infections: Sofosbuvir-Containing Regimens Without Interferon for Treatment of Acute HCV in HIV-1 Infected Individuals

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines for the management of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections provide varying recommendations for the optimal treatment of acute HCV infections. There are limited data from small cohort studies to provide guidance on the best approach to treatment of this important patient population.

METHODS

Sofosbuvir-Containing Regimens Without Interferon for Treatment of Acute HCV in HIV-1 Infected Individuals is an open-label, 2-cohort, Phase 1 clinical trial in which the second cohort assessed the safety and efficacy of 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for the treatment of acute HCV infections in participants with chronic human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 infections. This final analysis of the second cohort had a planned accrual of 27 participants, based on non-inferiority criteria, compared to the study-defined, historical, sustained virologic response (SVR) of 60% with pegylated-interferon/ribavirin.

RESULTS

We enrolled 27 men (9 Hispanic; 11 White, non-Hispanic; 5 Black, non-Hispanic; 2 Asian or Pacific Islander; median age 46 years). Most (96%) had HCV genotype-1 infection and 59% had the favorable interleukin 28B CC genotype. The median baseline HCV RNA load was 6.17 log10 IU/mL (interquartile range 4.51 - 6.55). All participants (100%) achieved the primary outcome of a sustained virologic response 12 weeks after the date of the last dose of study treatment (90% confidence interval 90-100%), achieving non-inferiority versus the 60% historic benchmark. No treatment discontinuations occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter clinical trial, investigating 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for acute HCV infections in men with HIV infections, reports a 100% SVR. This study provides the rationale for larger studies of shortened courses of direct-acting antiviral therapies in persons with HIV infections, including those with high baseline HCV RNA loads.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT02128217.

Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir/Voxilaprevir for patients with HCV who previously received a Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir-containing regimen: Results from a retreatment study

This study evaluated 12-week retreatment with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection who did not achieve sustained virologic response after previous treatment with a sofosbuvir- and velpatasvir-containing regimen. All 31 patients maintained a sustained virologic response 12 weeks after the last sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir dose.

Comparison of the efficacy of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in Chinese patients with genotype 3a or 3b HCV infection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Genotype 3b hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection represents approximately 50% of patients with genotype 3 in China. We compared the efficacy of sofosbuvir (SOF) plus ribavirin (RBV) in Chinese patients with genotype 3a and 3b HCV.

METHODS

The analyzed data are from a phase 3, open-label study of SOF plus RBV for 24 weeks conducted in China. The primary endpoint for the trial was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12).

RESULTS

Of 126 patients included in this analysis, 58 (46%) had genotype 3a and 68 (54%) had genotype 3b. Both the subtypes were similar in age, sex, body mass index, IL28B, and baseline HCV RNA. However, more treatment-experienced and cirrhotic patients were in the genotype 3b group. All 100% of patients with genotype 3a (95% confidence interval [CI], 94-100), and 91% (95% CI, 82-97) of patients with genotype 3b achieved SVR12 (P = 0.030). For treatment-experienced patients with genotype 3b, the SVR12 rate was 73% (95% CI, 39-94) and 88% (95% CI, 64-99) among patients with and without cirrhosis (P = 1.00), respectively.

CONCLUSION

SOF plus RBV for 24 weeks in patients with HCV genotype 3 infection resulted in high rates of SVR. However, the SVR12 rate among patients with genotype 3b was lower than that observed in patients with genotype 3a infection, particularly among treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis.

Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin for 8 or 12 weeks for the treatment of HCV genotype 4 infection: results from a randomised phase III study in Egypt

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir alone and with ribavirin for 8 and 12 weeks in Egyptian patients with and without cirrhosis, who were infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 4, including those who had failed previous treatment with sofosbuvir regimens.

DESIGN

In this open-label, multicentre, phase III study, treatment-naive patients were randomised to receive 8 or 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin. Interferon treatment-experienced patients were randomised to receive 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin, while sofosbuvir-experienced or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir-experienced patients received 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir+ribavirin. Randomisation was stratified by cirrhosis status. The primary endpoint was sustained virological response 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12).

RESULTS

We enrolled 255 patients from four centres in Egypt. Among treatment-naive patients, SVR12 rates were 95% and 90% for those receiving 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir alone and with ribavirin, respectively, and 98% for those receiving 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir both alone and with ribavirin. Among interferon-experienced patients, SVR rates were 94% for those receiving 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and 100% for those receiving 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir plus ribavirin. All patients previously treated with sofosbuvir regimens who received ledipasvir/sofosbuvir plus ribavirin achieved SVR12. The most common adverse events, headache and fatigue, were more common among patients receiving ribavirin.

CONCLUSION

Among non-cirrhotic treatment-naive patients with HCV genotype 4, 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin was highly effective. Twelve weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin was highly effective regardless of presence of cirrhosis or prior treatment experience, including previous treatment with sofosbuvir or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02487030.

Efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir with or without ribavirin in HCV-infected Japanese patients with decompensated cirrhosis: an open-label phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In Japan, hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients with decompensated cirrhosis currently have no treatment options. In this Phase 3 study, we evaluated sofosbuvir-velpatasvir with or without ribavirin for 12 weeks in patients with any HCV genotype and decompensated cirrhosis [Child-Pugh-Turcotte (CPT) class B or C] in Japan.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive sofosbuvir-velpatasvir with or without ribavirin for 12 weeks. Randomization was stratified by CPT class and genotype. Sustained virologic response 12 weeks following completion of treatment (SVR12) was the primary efficacy endpoint.

RESULTS

Of the 102 patients enrolled, 57% were treatment naive, 78% and 20% had genotype 1 and 2 HCV infection, respectively, and 77% and 20% had CPT class B and C cirrhosis, respectively, at baseline. Overall, 61% of patients were female and the mean age was 66 years (range 41-83). SVR12 rates were 92% (47/51) in each group. Among patients who achieved SVR12, 26% had improved CPT class from baseline to posttreatment week 12. Most adverse events (AEs) were consistent with clinical sequelae of advanced liver disease or known toxicities of ribavirin. Four patients (8%) who received sofosbuvir-velpatasvir and seven (14%) who received sofosbuvir-velpatasvir plus ribavirin experienced a serious AE. The 3 deaths (bacterial sepsis, gastric varices hemorrhage, hepatocellular carcinoma) were attributed to liver disease progression.

CONCLUSION

Sofosbuvir-velpatasvir for 12 weeks provides a highly effective and well-tolerated therapy for Japanese patients with HCV and decompensated cirrhosis. Ribavirin did not improve efficacy but increased toxicity.