Switching TDF/FTC/EFV to TDF/FTC/RPV VS Continuing TDF/FTC/EFV in HIV Patients With Complete Virological Suppression (STEREOS)

May 4, 2019 updated by: Mahidol University

Switching Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Efavirenz to Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Rilpivirine Versus Continuing Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Efavirenz in HIV1-infected Patients With Complete Virological Suppression

According to the Thai National Guidelines for Treatment of HIV/AIDS 2014, the recommended first line ART regimen was 2 NRTIs backbone, TDF and FTC; plus 1 NNRTI, EFV, with RPV as an alternative one. Most of the randomized-controlled studies, including ECHO and THRIVE, showed the non-inferiority of RPV compared with EFV in naive cases. But there were not much randomized-controlled trials for changing from other NRTI to RPV in patients who currently on another ART, especially in Thailand. Moreover, the concerned adverse effects of dyslipidemia and neurological symptoms were better in RPV-based than EFV-based regimen. Finally, the cost-effectiveness and universal coverage are also the benefit of RPV over EFV in term of economics.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

According to the Thai National Guidelines for Treatment of HIV/AIDS 2014, the recommended first line ART (Anti-retroviral therapy) regimen was 2 NRTIs (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors) backbone, which are TDF (Tenofovir) and FTC (Emtricitabine); plus 1 NNRTI (non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor), which is EFV (Efavirenz), with RPV (Rilpivirine) as an alternative in this class of drug.

Most of the randomized-controlled studies, including ECHO (Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with tenofovir and emtricitabine in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1) and THRIVE (Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1), the major trials about RPV, showed the non-inferiority in efficacy of RPV compared with that of EFV in treatment-naive cases with blood HIV viral load less than 500,000 copies/mL. But there were not many trials focusing on changing the ART-regimens from other NRTI to RPV in patients who currently on another ART, especially in randomized-controlled design. There were some studies comparing continuing current regimens versus changing to Rilpivirine-based regimens, but they didn't exclusively select the homogeneous drug components. In Thailand, study of changing to Rilpivirine-based regimens was primarily designed to evaluate the adverse outcome about dyslipidemia, whereas efficacy was a secondary outcome. Most studies, the concerned adverse effects of dyslipidemia and neurological symptoms were better in RPV-based than EFV-based regimen. Finally, the cost-effectiveness and universal coverage are also the benefit of RPV over EFV in term of economics.

Therefore, we design this study to evaluate the efficacy; in term of non-inferiority, of the newer, safer, and cheaper drug, Rilpivirine, to Efavirenz, the general-use drug with acceptable efficacy, in the virological-suppressed patients currently on ART. Besides, we also assess the adverse outcomes and factors associated with successful or failure of treatment. In addition, we can have more backup data in term of national economics.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

246

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • on TDF/FTC/EFV for more than 3 months
  • Blood HIV RNA viral load <50 copies/mL
  • CD4+ count >200 cells/mm3
  • eligible to sign the informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

  • history of NRTI resistance
  • on medication that potentially interact with study drug
  • denied to participate in the study

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Switching TDF/FTC/EFV to TDF/FTC/RPV
Switching from Tenofovir 300 mg/day + Emtricitabine 200 mg/day + Efavirenz 600 mg/day (once daily) to Tenofovir 300 mg/day + Emtricitabine 200 mg/day + Rilpivirine 25 mg/day (once daily) Intervention: Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Rilpivirine
Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Rilpivirine to compare the non-inferiority of efficacy and adverse effects to Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Efavirenz in patients with virological suppression
Other Names:
  • TDF/FTC/RPV
Active Comparator: Continuing TDF/FTC/EFV
Continuing Tenofovir 300 mg/day + Emtricitabine 200 mg/day + Efavirenz 600 mg/day Intervention: Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Efavirenz
as a active comparator
Other Names:
  • TDF/FTC/EFV

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Sustained virological response
Time Frame: 12 months
maintain the undetectable HIV viral load
12 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Lipid adverse outcome
Time Frame: 12 months
Different in blood lipid profiles, including triglycerides, cholesterol, HDL, and LDL
12 months
Neurological adverse outcome
Time Frame: 12 months
Neurological adverse events such as dizziness
12 months
Cost -saving after switching regimens
Time Frame: 12 months
12 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Sirichai Wiriyatanakorn, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University
  • Principal Investigator: Somneuk Sungkanuparp, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

October 27, 2016

Primary Completion (Actual)

April 30, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

April 30, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 14, 2017

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 15, 2017

First Posted (Actual)

August 16, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

May 7, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 4, 2019

Last Verified

May 1, 2019

More Information

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Dyslipidemias

Clinical Trials on Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Rilpivirine

3
Subscribe