Title
Dolutegravir versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir both with dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy in adults with HIV-1 infection in whom first-line therapy has failed (DAWNING): an open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3b trial
Date Issued
01 March 2019
Access level
metadata only access
Resource Type
journal article
Author(s)
Aboud M.
Kaplan R.
Lombaard J.
Zhang F.
Mamedova E.
Losso M.H.
Chetchotisakd P.
Brites C.
Sievers J.
Brown D.
Hopking J.
Underwood M.
Nascimento M.C.
Punekar Y.
Gartland M.
Smith K.
Asociación Vía Libre
Publisher(s)
Lancet Publishing Group
Abstract
Background: Doubts exist regarding optimal second-line treatment options for HIV-1-infected patients in resource-limited settings. We assessed safety and efficacy of dolutegravir compared with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in adults in whom previous first-line antiretroviral therapy with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) plus two NRTIs has failed. Methods: DAWNING is a phase 3b, open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, active-controlled trial done at 58 sites in 13 countries. Eligible adults were aged at least 18 years and, during at least 6 months of treatment with a first-line treatment containing an NNRTI and two NRTIs, had virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA ≥400 copies per mL). Participants were randomly assigned by a central randomisation system to receive oral dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (800 mg lopinavir plus 200 mg ritonavir once daily or 400 mg plus 100 mg twice daily), plus two investigator-selected NRTIs (at least one fully active based on resistance testing at screening). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving viral suppression (defined as plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48 using the snapshot algorithm and a non-inferiority margin of −12%. The primary analysis was done in an intention-to-treat-exposed (ITT-E) population of participants who received at least one dose of study medication, according to original group assignment. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug, according to which drug was received. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02227238, and viiv-studyregister.com, number 200304. Findings: Between Dec 11, 2014, and June 27, 2016, 968 adults were screened and 627 were randomly assigned to the dolutegravir group (n=312) or the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (n=315). Three patients in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group did not receive study medication and so 624 were included in the ITT-E population. At week 48, 261 (84%) of 312 participants in the dolutegravir group achieved viral suppression compared with 219 (70%) of 312 in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (adjusted difference 13·8%; 95% CI 7·3–20·3). Non-inferiority was achieved on the basis of the 95% CI of the adjusted treatment difference having a lower bound greater than −12% (prespecified non-inferiority margin). Because the lower bound of the 95% CI is greater than zero (7·3%), superiority of dolutegravir was also concluded (p<0·0001). The safety profile for dolutegravir was favourable compared with that of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. More grade 2–4 drug-related adverse events occurred with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir than dolutegravir (44 [14%] of 310 with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir vs 11 [4%] of 314 with dolutegravir), mainly driven by gastrointestinal disorders. Interpretation: When administered with two NRTIs, dolutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir at 48 weeks and can be considered a suitable option for second-line treatment. Funding: ViiV Healthcare.
Start page
253
End page
264
Volume
19
Issue
3
Language
English
OCDE Knowledge area
Farmacología, Farmacia Virología
Scopus EID
2-s2.0-85062034352
PubMed ID
Source
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
ISSN of the container
14733099
Sponsor(s)
MA, JS, DB, MU, MCN, YP, MG, and KS are employees of ViiV Healthcare and own stock in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). JAH reports personal fees from GSK Peru and Pharmaceutical Product Development (PPD) during the conduct of the study and personal fees from PPD outside of the submitted work. MHL reports grants from GSK during the conduct of the study and grants from GSK, Merck, AbbVie, and Gador outside of the submitted work. PC reports grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, GSK, Gilead, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. JH is an employee of and owns stock in GSK. All other authors declare no competing interests. This study was funded by ViiV Healthcare. We thank the DAWNING study participants and their families and caregivers for participation in the study and the DAWNING investigators (see appendix ) and their staff. All listed authors meet the criteria for authorship set forth by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Editorial assistance was provided under direction of the authors by Jeff Stumpf and Jennifer Rossi of MedThink SciCom. Data included in this manuscript were presented in part at the 9th IAS Conference on HIV Science, Paris, France, July 23–26, 2017 (TUAB0105LB); the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Boston, MA, USA, March 4–7, 2018 (508); and the 22nd International AIDS Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, July 23–27, 2018 (THPEB040 and THPEB071). Gilead Sciences Merck Sharp and Dohme MSD GlaxoSmithKline foundation GSK
Sources of information: Directorio de Producción Científica Scopus