Efficacy and Safety of Lersivirine (UK-453,061) Versus Efavirenz in Antiretroviral Treatment-Naive HIV-1-Infected Patients: Week 48 Primary Analysis Results From an Ongoing, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase IIb Trial.

*Cantonal Hospital, St. Gallen, Switzerland †Pfizer Inc, New London, CT ‡Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, United Kingdom §Provincial Infectious Hospital of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland ‖Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia ¶Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Cape Town, South Africa #Universita Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy **Pfizer Inc, New York, NY ††ViiV Healthcare, Research Triangle Park, NC ‡‡Pfizer Global Research and Development, Sandwich Laboratories, Kent, United Kingdom. Julie Mori is now with Retroscreen Virology Ltd, Queen Mary BioEnterprises Innovation Centre, London, United Kingdom.
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (Impact Factor: 4.56). 02/2013; 62(2):171-179. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31827a2ba2.
Source: PubMed


A 96-week clinical study was planned to estimate the antiviral activity and safety of lersivirine in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients.

This ongoing international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, Phase IIb exploratory study evaluates the efficacy and safety of 2 doses of lersivirine or 1 of efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive lersivirine (500 or 750 mg once daily) or efavirenz (600 mg once daily), each administered with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (300 mg/200 mg, once daily). The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter (missing/discontinuation = failure) at week 48.

For the 193 patients in the study, baseline mean plasma HIV-1 RNA was 4.7 log10 copies per milliliter, and median CD4 cell count was 312 cells per cubic millimeter. At week 48, the percentage of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter was 78.5% (51/65), 78.5% (51/65), and 85.7% (54/63) in the lersivirine 500 mg, 750 mg, and efavirenz groups, respectively. CD4 cell count changes from baseline were similar across groups. Virologic failure occurred in 7 patients (11%) in each of the lersivirine groups and 3 patients (5%) in the efavirenz group. The pattern of lersivirine resistance was distinct from other nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Overall incidences of all-causality treatment-related or grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) or AE-related discontinuations were lower with lersivirine than with efavirenz, and serious AEs occurred at similar rates across treatment groups.

Both lersivirine doses showed broadly comparable efficacy to efavirenz over 48 weeks in treatment-naive patients, with different AE profiles from efavirenz.

7 Reads
  • Source
    • "A beta-cyclodextran-based drug-delivery system is being developed to enhance the aqueous solubility of UC781.85 Recently, an ongoing, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, Phase IIb clinical trial concluded that lersivirine (UK-453,061), a next generation NNRTI, is safe and displayed comparable efficacy to efavirenz in the treatment of naïve HIV-1-infected patients.86 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Microbicides, primarily used as topical pre-exposure prophylaxis, have been proposed to prevent sexual transmission of HIV. This review covers the trends and challenges in the development of safe and effective microbicides to prevent sexual transmission of HIV Initial phases of microbicide development used such surfactants as nonoxynol-9 (N-9), C13G, and sodium lauryl sulfate, aiming to inactivate the virus. Clinical trials of microbicides based on N-9 and C31G failed to inhibit sexual transmission of HIV. On the contrary, N-9 enhanced susceptibility to sexual transmission of HIV-1. Subsequently, microbicides based on polyanions and a variety of other compounds that inhibit the binding, fusion, or entry of virus to the host cells were evaluated for their efficacy in different clinical setups. Most of these trials failed to show either safety or efficacy for prevention of HIV transmission. The next phase of microbicide development involved antiretroviral drugs. Microbicide in the form of 1% tenofovir vaginal gel when tested in a Phase IIb trial (CAPRISA 004) in a coitally dependent manner revealed that tenofovir gel users were 39% less likely to become HIV-infected compared to placebo control. However, in another trial (VOICE MTN 003), tenofovir gel used once daily in a coitally independent mode failed to show any efficacy to prevent HIV infection. Tenofovir gel is currently in a Phase III safety and efficacy trial in South Africa (FACTS 001) employing a coitally dependent dosing regimen. Further, long-acting microbicide-delivery systems (vaginal ring) for slow release of such antiretroviral drugs as dapivirine are also undergoing clinical trials. Discovering new markers as correlates of protective efficacy, novel long-acting delivery systems with improved adherence in the use of microbicides, discovering new compounds effective against a broad spectrum of HIV strains, developing multipurpose technologies incorporating additional features of efficacy against other sexually transmitted infections, and contraception will help in moving the field of microbicide development forward.
    HIV/AIDS - Research and Palliative Care 10/2013; 5:295-307. DOI:10.2147/HIV.S39164
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The resounding success of combination antiretroviral efficacy for both treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients - with 70-90% viral suppression rates in recent studies - has made registration trials for new agents challenging. With the inevitable specter of drug resistance, new agents must have a pathway to approval. The Forum for Collaborative HIV Research obtained input from concerned stakeholders including industry, clinical sciences, community advocacy, and regulatory sciences (Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency) to discuss how safety and efficacy of new agents could be demonstrated. Recognizing the shortfalls of superiority or noninferiority trials in this environment, a new trial design for treatment-experienced patients, minimizing the risk for drug resistance but allowing full assessment of safety, was proposed. The antiviral efficacy of an active investigational drug would be assessed by comparison to placebo as an add-on to a failing regimen in a short, 10-14-day study followed by institution of an optimized background regimen (OBR) in both arms with investigational drug given to all patients. The follow-on stage would assess dose response, safety, durability of initial response, and development of resistance. Additionally, a second safety trial could be conducted comparing patients randomized to the investigational agent with a new OBR to those on a new OBR and placebo. Finally, approval decisions could consider other long-term safety endpoints. Exposing treatment-naïve patients to investigational agents remains a controversial issue; stakeholders have different interpretations of risk-benefit for trials in this population that necessitate careful consideration before initiating trials in them.
    AIDS (London, England) 02/2012; 26(8):899-907. DOI:10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283519371 · 5.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: (See the Editorial Commentary by Kuritzkes et al, on pages 876–7.) We systematically reviewed studies of the virological efficacy of the 4 new tenofovir (TDF)-containing regimens recommended for initial antiretroviral (ARV) therapy in the 2010 World Health Organization ARV Treatment Guidelines. Thirty-three studies assessed the efficacy of 1 or more TDF-containing regimens: TDF/lamivudine (3TC)/nevirapine (NVP) (n = 3), TDF/ emtricitabine (FTC)/NVP (n = 9), TDF/3TC/efavirenz (EFV) (n = 6), and TDF/FTC/EFV (n = 19). TDF/3TC/NVP was the least well-studied and appeared the least efficacious of the 4 regimens. In 2 comparative studies, TDF/3TC/NVP was associated with significantly more virological failure than AZT/3TC/NVP; a third study was terminated prematurely because of early virological failure. TDF/FTC/NVP was either equivalent or inferior to its comparator arms. TDF/3TC/EFV was equivalent to its comparator arms. TDF/FTC/EFV was equivalent or superior to its comparator arms. Possible explanations for these findings include the greater antiviral activity of EFV versus NVP and longer intracellular half-life of FTC-triphosphate versus 3TC-triphosphate. Further study of TDF/3TC/NVP is required before it is widely deployed for initial ARV therapy.
    Clinical Infectious Diseases 03/2012; 54(6):862-75. DOI:10.1093/cid/cir1034 · 8.89 Impact Factor
Show more