877. North American Phase 3/3b Experience with Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine: Efficacy, Safety, and Virologic Outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Cabotegravir (CAB) plus rilpivirine (RPV) is the first complete long-acting (LA) regimen recommended by treatment guidelines for the maintenance of HIV-1 virologic suppression. CAB+RPV LA dosed every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) demonstrated noninferior efficacy in multinational Phase 3/3b trials. This post hoc descriptive analysis summarizes efficacy, virologic outcomes, safety, and treatment preference for US and Canadian (CAN) participants through Week (W) 48. Methods This analysis focuses on data for US/CAN participants naive to CAB+RPV (n=376) from the larger pooled population of the ATLAS, FLAIR, and ATLAS-2M Phase 3/3b studies (N=1245). Endpoints included the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 and < 50 c/mL at W48 (FDA Snapshot algorithm), incidence of confirmed virologic failure (CVF; 2 consecutive HIV-1 RNA ≥ 200 c/mL), safety, and treatment preference through W48. Results 376 US/CAN participants received CAB+RPV LA Q4W or Q8W. Median (range) age was 39y (20–74); 14.9% were female, 66.0% were White. At W48, 93.1% (350/376) maintained virologic suppression (HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL), 1.9% (7/376) had HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL, and 0.8% (3/376) met the CVF criterion, consistent with the overall global pooled population (Table 1). Two of the three participants with CVF had ≥ 2 of the three baseline factors (archived RPV resistance-associated mutations [RAMs], HIV subtype A6/A1, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m2) previously associated with CVF. Among the US/CAN participants with a single baseline factor, none met CVF. Overall, archived RPV RAMs were observed in 3.2% (12/376), HIV subtype A6/A1 in 1.1% (4/376), and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 in 26.3% (99/376) of participants. Safety and injection site reaction findings were similar to the overall pooled population (Table 2). Most participants (120/134, 89.6%) preferred LA over oral dosing (7/134, 5.2%). Table 1. Snapshot outcomes following CAB+RPV LA Q4W and Q8W at Week 48 in participants naive to CAB+RPV from ATLAS, FLAIR, and ATLAS-2M (ITT-E population) Table 2. Safety summary through Week 48 following CAB+RPV LA Q4W and Q8W or comparator ART in participants naive to CAB+RPV from ATLAS, FLAIR, and ATLAS-2M Conclusion In US/CAN Phase 3/3b trial participants, CAB+RPV LA was highly effective and well tolerated, with outcomes consistent with the overall pooled population. Baseline prevalence of archived RPV RAMs and subtype A6/A1 was low and aligned with regional prevalence/surveillance data. CAB+RPV LA provides a tolerable and effective injectable LA treatment option for virologically suppressed US/CAN individuals with HIV. Disclosures Babafemi O. Taiwo, MBBS, Gilead (Consultant)Merck (Consultant)ViiV Healthcare (Consultant) Darrell Tan, MD PhD, Abbvie (Grant/Research Support)Gilead (Grant/Research Support)GlaxoSmithKline (Scientific Research Study Investigator)ViiV Healthcare (Grant/Research Support) Parul Patel, PharmD, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Paula Teichner, PharmD, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Joseph Polli, PhD, FAAPS, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Louise Garside, PhD, GlaxoSmithKline (Employee) Ronald D’Amico, DO, MSc, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Christine L. Talarico, M.S., GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Rodica Van Solingen-Ristea, MD, Janssen Research and Development (Employee)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Bryan Baugh, MD, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson (Employee, Shareholder) William Spreen, PharmD, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Michael Aboud, MBChB, MRCP, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Matthew Bosse, DO, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».