Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide vs emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (DISCOVER): primary results from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Kenneth H Mayer, Jean-Michel Molina, Melanie A Thompson, Peter L Anderson, Karam C Mounzer, Joss J De Wet, Edwin DeJesus, Heiko Jessen, Robert M Grant, Peter J Ruane, Pamela Wong, Ramin Ebrahimi, Lijie Zhong, Anita Mathias, Christian Callebaut, Sean E Collins, Moupali Das, Scott McCallister, Diana M Brainard, Cynthia Brinson, Amanda Clarke, Pep Coll, Frank A Post, C Bradley Hare, Kenneth H Mayer, Jean-Michel Molina, Melanie A Thompson, Peter L Anderson, Karam C Mounzer, Joss J De Wet, Edwin DeJesus, Heiko Jessen, Robert M Grant, Peter J Ruane, Pamela Wong, Ramin Ebrahimi, Lijie Zhong, Anita Mathias, Christian Callebaut, Sean E Collins, Moupali Das, Scott McCallister, Diana M Brainard, Cynthia Brinson, Amanda Clarke, Pep Coll, Frank A Post, C Bradley Hare

Abstract

Background: Tenofovir alafenamide shows high antiviral efficacy and improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate when used for HIV treatment. Here, we report primary results from a blinded phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide versus emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention.

Methods: This study is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 94 community, public health, and hospital-associated clinics located in regions of Europe and North America, where there is a high incidence of HIV or prevalence of people living with HIV, or both. We enrolled adult cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women who have sex with men, both with a high risk of acquiring HIV on the basis of their self-reported sexual behaviour in the past 12 weeks or their recent history (within 24 weeks of enrolment) of bacterial sexually transmitted infections. Participants with current or previous use of PrEP with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were not excluded. We used a computer-generated random allocation sequence to randomly assign (1:1) participants to receive either emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group), or emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). As such, all participants were given two tablets. The trial sponsor, investigators, participants, and the study staff who provided the study drugs, assessed the outcomes, and collected the data were masked to group assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was incident HIV infection, which was assessed when all participants had completed 48 weeks of follow-up and half of all participants had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. This full analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug and had at least one post-baseline HIV test. Non-inferiority of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was established if the upper bound of the 95·003% CI of the HIV incidence rate ratio (IRR) was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62. We prespecified six secondary bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints to evaluate using the safety analysis set. This analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02842086, and is no longer recruiting.

Findings: Between Sept 13, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 5387 (92%) of 5857 participants were randomly assigned and received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (n=2694) or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=2693). At the time of the primary efficacy analysis (ie, when all participants had completed 48 weeks and 50% had completed 96 weeks) emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the IRR, was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62 (IRR 0·47 [95% CI 0·19-1·15]). After 8756 person-years of follow-up, 22 participants were diagnosed with HIV, seven participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group (0·16 infections per 100 person-years [95% CI 0·06-0·33]), and 15 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (0·34 infections per 100 person-years [0·19-0·56]). Both regimens were well tolerated, with a low number of participants reporting adverse events that led to discontinuation of the study drug (36 [1%] of 2694 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group vs 49 [2%] of 2693 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was superior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in all six prespecified bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints.

Interpretation: Daily emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide shows non-inferior efficacy to daily emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, and the number of adverse events for both regimens was low. Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide had more favourable effects on bone mineral density and biomarkers of renal safety than emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

Funding: Gilead Sciences.

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial profile *49 (13·5%) of these participants were HIV positive at screening. †Refers to participants who returned for their baseline visit more than 30 days after their screening visit. ‡Enrolment to the study was closed before this participant could be randomly assigned, even though they had been screened. §24 participants were excluded for not having undergone a post-baseline HIV test. ¶28 participants were excluded for not having undergone a post-baseline HIV test.
Figure 2
Figure 2
HIV IRR and incidence on F/TAF versus F/TDF at the primary efficacy analysis IRR (F/TAF divided by F/TDF) of HIV (A) and incidence of HIV per 100 person-years (B) in the F/TAF and F/TDF groups. The primary efficacy analysis was done when participants had completed a minimum follow-up of 48 weeks and at least 50% of participants had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. Error bars represent 95% CIs. IRR=incidence rate ratio. F/TAF=emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide. F/TDF=emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Prespecified secondary endpoints Hip BMD (A), spine BMD (B), β2-microglobulin to creatinine ratio (C), RBP to creatinine ratio (D), development of quantitative proteinuria (UPCR >22·6 mg/mmol) at 48 weeks among participants with UPCR ≤22·6 mg/mmol (E), participants with UPCR elevation of >22·6 mg/mmol (F), serum creatinine (G), and creatinine clearance (eGFRCG). Data are mean (95% CI) or median (IQR). F/TAF=emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide. F/TDF=emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. BMD=bone mineral density. RBP=retinol-binding protein. UPCR=urine protein to creatinine ratio. eGFRCG=estimated glomerular filtration rate by Cockcroft-Gault. *ANOVA model with baseline F/TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment as fixed effects. †Van Elteren test stratified by baseline F/TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis to compare the two treatment groups. ‡Rank ANCOVA adjusting for baseline category. §ANCOVA model including baseline F/TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.

References

    1. Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2587–2599.
    1. Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:399–410.
    1. Molina JM, Capitant C, Spire B, et al. On-demand preexposure prophylaxis in men at high risk for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2237–2246.
    1. McCormack S, Dunn DT, Desai M, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2016;387:53–60.
    1. Marcus JL, Hurley LB, Hare CB, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in a large integrated health care system: adherence, renal safety, and discontinuation. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;73:540–546.
    1. Volk JE, Marcus JL, Phengrasamy T, et al. No new HIV infections with increasing use of HIV preexposure prophylaxis in a clinical practice setting. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61:1601–1603.
    1. Cohen SE, Sachdev D, Lee S, et al. 1298. acquisition of TDF-susceptible HIV despite high level adherence to daily TDF/FTC PrEP as measured by dried blood spot (DBS) and segmental hair analysis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018;5(suppl 1):S396–S397. (abstr).
    1. Markowitz M, Grossman H, Anderson PL, et al. Newly acquired infection with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 in a patient adherent to preexposure prophylaxis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;76:e104–e106.
    1. Thaden JT, Ghandi M, Okochi H, Hurt CB, McKellar MS. Seroconversion on preexposure prophylaxis: a case report with segmental hair analysis for timed adherence determination. AIDS. 2018;32:F1–F4. (abstr).
    1. Parikh UM, Mellors JW. Should we fear resistance from tenofovir/emtricitabine preexposure prophylaxis? AIDS. 2015;11:49–55.
    1. US CDC Effectiveness of prevention strategies to reduce the risk of acquiring or transmitting HIV. 2019.
    1. Grulich AE, Guy R, Amin J, et al. Population-level effectiveness of rapid, targeted, high-coverage roll-out of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men: the EPIC-NSW prospective cohort study. Lancet HIV. 2018;5:e629–e637.
    1. Highleyman L. PrEP scales up, HIV incidence declines. 2018.
    1. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene HIV surveillance annual report, 2018. 2018.
    1. Nwokolo N, Whitlock G, McOwan A. Not just PrEP: other reasons for London's HIV decline. Lancet HIV. 2017;4:e153.
    1. San Francisco Department of Public Health. Population Health Division HIV epidemiology annual report 2017. 2018.
    1. Sullivan PS, Smith DK, Mera-Giler R, et al. The impact of pre-exposure prophylaxis with TDF/FTC on HIV diagnoses, 2012–2016, United States. International AIDS Conference; Amsterdam, Netherlands; July 23–27, 2018 (abstr LBPEC036).
    1. Ruane PJ, DeJesus E, Berger D, et al. Antiviral activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of tenofovir alafenamide as 10-day monotherapy in HIV-1-positive adults. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63:449–455.
    1. Schwartz JL, Cottrell M, Thurman AR, et al. HIV prevention in healthy women: safety and pharmacokinetics of a potential new tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF)-based oral prep regimen. HIV Research for Prevention conference; Madrid, Spain; Oct 21–25, 2018 (presentation OA15.04).
    1. Spinner CD, Brunetta J, Shalit P, et al. DISCOVER study for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): F/TAF has a more rapid onset and longer sustained duration of HIV protection compared with F/TDF. 2019.
    1. Massud I, Mitchell J, Babusis D, et al. Chemoprophylaxis with oral emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide combination protects macaques from rectal simian/human immunodeficiency virus infection. J Infect Dis. 2016;214:1058–1062.
    1. Arribas JR, Thompson M, Sax PE, et al. Brief report: randomized, double-blind comparison of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) vs tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) each coformulated with elvitegravir, cobicistat, and emtricitabine (E/C/F) for initial HIV-1 treatment: week 144 results. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;75:211–218.
    1. Mills A, Arribas JR, Andrade-Villanueva J, et al. Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide in antiretroviral regimens for virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, active-controlled, multicentre, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:43–52.
    1. Sax PE, Wohl D, Yin MT, et al. Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, coformulated with elvitegravir, cobicistat, and emtricitabine, for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: two randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trials. Lancet. 2015;385:2606–2615.
    1. Gallant JE, DeJesus E, Raffi F, et al. Efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate given as fixed-dose combinations containing emtricitabine as backbones for treatment of HIV-1 infection in virologically suppressed adults: a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet HIV. 2016;3:e158–e165.
    1. DeJesus E, Ragmopal M, Crofoot G, et al. Switching from efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide coformulated with rilpivirine and emtricitabine in virally suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3b, non-inferiority study. Lancet HIV. 2017;4:e205–e213.
    1. Orkin C, DeJesus E, Ramgopal M, et al. Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide coformulated with rilpivirine and emtricitabine in virally suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3b, non-inferiority study. Lancet HIV. 2017;4:e195–e204.
    1. Hodder S, Squires K, Kityo C, et al. Brief report: efficacy and safety of switching to coformulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF) in virologically suppressed women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018;78:209–213.
    1. Gupta SK, Post F, Arribas JR, et al. Renal safety of tenofovir alafenamide vs tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a pooled analysis of 26 clinical trials. AIDS. 2019;33:1455–1465.
    1. Chan HL, Fung S, Seto WK, et al. Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;1:185–195.
    1. Agarwal K, Brunetto M, Seto WK, et al. 96 weeks treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol. 2018;68:672–681.
    1. Gunthard HF, Saag MS, Benson CA, et al. Antiretroviral drugs for treatment and prevention of HIV infection in adults: 2016 recommendations of the international antiviral society-USA panel. JAMA. 2016;316:191–210.
    1. Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in adults and adolescents living with HIV. 2018.
    1. European AIDS Clinical Society Guidelines, version 9.1. 2018.
    1. AVAC. UNAIDS Good participatory practice: guidelines for biomedical HIV prevention trials, second edition. 2011.
    1. US CDC 2015 sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines. 2015.
    1. Anderson PL, Glidden DV, Liu A, et al. Emtricitabine-tenofovir concentrations and pre-exposure prophylaxis efficacy in men who have sex with men. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4:1–17.
    1. National Kidney Foundation K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39:S1–S266.
    1. Ulm K. A simple method to calculate the confidence interval of a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) Am J Epidemiol. 1990;131:373–375.
    1. Wiens BL, Dmitrienko A. The fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses. J Biopharm Stat. 2005;15:929–942.
    1. LaVange LM, Koch GG. In: Wiley Encyclopedia of Clinical Trials. D'Abostino RB Sr., Sullivan LM, Massaro JM, editors. John Wiley & Sons; Hoboken, NJ: 2008. Randomization-based nonparametric (ANCOVA) pp. 31–38.
    1. Walsh JS, Henry YM, Fatayerji D, Eastell R. Lumbar spine peak bone mass and bone turnover in men and women: a longitudinal study. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20:355–362.
    1. Weaver CM, Gordon CM, Janz KF, et al. The National Osteoporosis Foundation's position statement on peak bone mass development and lifestyle factors: a systematic review and implementation recommendations. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27:1281–1386.
    1. Molina JM, Charreau I, Spire B, et al. Efficacy, safety, and effect on sexual behaviour of on-demand pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV in men who have sex with men: an observational cohort study. Lancet HIV. 2017;4:e402–e410.
    1. US CDC Effectiveness of prevention strategies to reduce the risk of acquiring or transmitting HIV. 2019.
    1. Mullick C, Murray J. Correlations between HIV infection and rectal gonorrhea incidence in men who have sex with men: implications for future HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis trials. J Infect Dis. 2020;221:214–217.
    1. Mera R, Cheer S, Carter C, et al. Estimation of new HIV diagnosis rates among high-risk, PrEP-eligible individuals using HIV surveillance data at the Metropolitan Statistical Area level in the United States. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22
    1. Schwartz JL, Cottrell M, Thurman AR, et al. HIV prevention in healthy women: safety and pharmacokinetics of a potential new tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF)-based oral prep regimen. HIV Research for Prevention Conference; Madrid, Spain; Oct 21–25, 2018 (presentation OA15.04).
    1. Walsh JS, Henry YM, Fatayerji D, Eastell R. Lumbar spine peak bone mass and bone turnover in men and women: a longitudinal study. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20:355–362.
    1. Weaver CM, Gordon CM, Janz KF, et al. The National Osteoporosis Foundation's position statement on peak bone mass development and lifestyle factors: a systematic review and implementation recommendations. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27:1281–1386.
    1. Borges ÁH, Hoy J, Florence E, et al. Antiretrovirals, fractures, and osteonecrosis in a large international HIV cohort. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64:1413–1421.
    1. Mary-Krause M, Grabar S, Lièvre L, et al. Cohort profile: French hospital database on HIV (FHDH-ANRS CO4) Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43:1425–1436.
    1. Elsesser SA, Oldenburg CE, Biello KB, et al. Seasons of risk: anticipated behavior on vacation and interest in episodic antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among a large national sample of U.S. men who have sex with men (MSM) AIDS Behav. 2016;20:1400–1407.
    1. Vuylsteke B, Reyniers T, De Baetselier I, et al. Daily and event-driven pre-exposure prophylaxis for men who have sex with men in Belgium: results of a prospective cohort measuring adherence, sexual behaviour and STI incidence. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22
    1. Huang Y-LA, Tao G, Smith DK, Hoover KW. Persistence with HIV preexposure prophylaxis in the United States, 2012–2016. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; Seattle, WA, USA; March 4–7, 2019 (abstr 106).
    1. Mayer K, Levine K, Grasso C, Krakower D, Marcus J. Longer term PrEP users in a Boston community health center: sociodemographic factors and PrEP persistence. Tenth International AIDS Conference on HIV Science; Mexico City, Mexico; July 21–24, 2019 (abstr TUPEC436).
    1. San Francisco Department of Public Health Important HIV prevention and treatment updates for San Francisco providers. 2019.
    1. WHO What's the 2+1+1? Event-driven oral pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV for men who have sex with men: update to WHO's recommendation on oral PrEP. July 2019.
    1. NYC Health “On-Demand” dosing for PrEP: guidance for medical providers. 2019.
    1. Chou R, Evans C, Hoverman A. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2019;321:2214–2230.
    1. Sax PE, Erlandson KM, Lake JE, et al. Weight gain following initiation of antiretroviral therapy: risk factors in randomized comparative clinical trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz999. published online Oct 14.
    1. Glidden DV, Mulligan K, McMahan V, et al. Metabolic effects of pre-exposure prophylaxis with co-formulated tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:411–419.
    1. Gilead Sciences Highlights of prescribing information. 2018.
    1. Tungsiripat M, Kitch D, Glesby MJ, et al. A pilot study to determine the impact on dyslipidemia of adding tenofovir to stable background antiretroviral therapy: ACTG 5206. AIDS. 2010;24:1781–1784.
    1. Santos JR, Saumoy M, Curran A, et al. The lipid-lowering effect of tenofovir/emtricitabine: a randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61:403–408.
    1. Landovitz RJ, Zangeneh SZ, Chau G, et al. Cabotegravir is not associated with weight gain in human immunodeficiency virus–uninfected individuals in HPTN 077. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70:319–322.
    1. Hill JO, Wyatt HR, Reed GW, Peters JC. Obesity and the environment: where do we go from here? Science. 2003;299:853–855.
    1. Malhotra R, Ostbye T, Riley CM, et al. Young adult weight trajectories through midlife by body mass category. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2013;21:1923–1934.
    1. Littman AJ, Jacobson IG, Boyko EJ, Powell TM, Smith TC, Millennium Cohort Study Team Weight change following US military service. Int J Obes (Lond) 2013;37:244–253.
    1. Hill A, Venter WF, Delaporte E, et al. Progressive rises in weight and clinical obesity for TAF/FTC/DTG and TDF/FTC/DTG versus TDF/FTC/EFV: ADVANCE and NAMSAL trials. Tenth International AIDS Conference on HIV Science; Mexico City, Mexico; July 21–24, 2019 (abstr MOAX0102LB).
    1. Goff DC, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129:S49–S73.
    1. Friis-Møller N, Ryom L, Smith, et al. An updated prediction model of the global risk of cardiovascular disease in HIV-positive persons: the data-collection on adverse effects of anti-HIV drugs (D:A:D) study. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23:214–223.
    1. Huhn G, Shamblaw D, Baril JG, et al. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk profile of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;7
    1. Glidden DV. Advancing novel PrEP products – alternatives to non-inferiority. Stat Commun Infect Dis. 2019;11
    1. US CDC HIV surveillance report: diagnoses of HIV infection in the United States and dependent areas, 2017. 2018.
    1. Becasen JS, Denard CL, Mullins MM, Higa DH, Sipe TA. Estimating the prevalence of HIV and sexual behaviors among the US transgender population: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2006–2017. Am J Public Health. 2018 doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304727. published online Nov 29.
    1. US CDC HIV and gay and bisexual men. 2018.
    1. Kearney BP, Mathias A. Lack of effect of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on pharmacokinetics of hormonal contraceptives. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29:924–929.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅