To compare efficacy, resistance development, and safety between rilpivirine and efavirenz in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults with baseline viral load 100 000 copies/ml or less in the pooled 48-week dataset of the ECHO (Efficacy Comparison in treatment-naive HIV-infected subjects Of TMC278 and EFV) and THRIVE (TMC278 against HIV, in a once-daily RegImen Vs. Efavirenz) trials.
Phase III, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trials.
Patients received rilpivirine 25 mg once daily (q.d.) or efavirenz 600 mg q.d. with two nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors [N(t)RTIs]. This analysis considers the subpopulation of 368 rilpivirine and 330 efavirenz patients with baseline viral load 100 000 copies/ml or less.
Significantly higher 48-week response rates (viral load <50 copies/ml, intent-to-treat-time-to-loss-of-virological response) were observed with rilpivirine vs. efavirenz [90 vs. 84%, respectively; difference 6.6% (95% confidence interval 1.6–11.5%)]. The proportion of patients experiencing virological failure (VFres) was 5% in each treatment group. A comparable proportion of VFres patients in each group developed nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) [rilpivirine: 6/16 (38%) vs. efavirenz: 5/12 (42%)]. A numerically higher proportion of rilpivirine VFres patients developed N(t)RTI RAMs [7/16 (44%)] vs. efavirenz [2/12 (17%)]; P = 0.2232. A significantly lower incidence for rilpivirine vs. efavirenz was observed for the following events: treatment-related grade 2–4 overall adverse events (17 vs. 30%; P <0.0001), rash (any type; 2 vs. 12%; P <0.0001), and neurological adverse events (19 vs. 40%; P <0.0001), including dizziness (10 vs. 29%; P <0.0001). There was no significant difference between groups in the total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio.
In treatment-naive patients with baseline viral load 100 000 copies/ml or less, rilpivirine along with two N(t)RTIs achieved a high response, with a comparable frequency of VFres and more favorable tolerability than efavirenz.
aUniversity of Paris Diderot, INSERM U941, Paris 7 and Department of Infectious Diseases, Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, France
bSaint-Pierre University Hospital, Brussels
cJanssen Infectious Diseases BVBA, Beerse, Belgium.
Correspondence to Jean-Michel Molina, MD, University of Paris Diderot, Paris 7 and Department of Infectious Diseases, Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, France. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received 16 May, 2012
Revised 5 December, 2012
Accepted 18 December, 2012
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Website (http://www.AIDSonline.com).