The Late Presenter Treatment Optimisation Study — LAPTOP  

HIV/AIDS Clinical Trial

Official title: An Open-Label, Multi-Centre, Randomised Study to Investigate Integrase Inhibitor Versus Boosted Protease Inhibitor Antiretroviral Therapy for Patients With Advanced HIV Disease

Status Active, not recruiting

Clinical Trial Summary

The main purpose of this study is to compare two different types of HIV treatments, in terms of effectiveness and improvement of side effects, for patients who are diagnosed with a more advanced HIV infection. Patients with advanced HIV infections are otherwise known as 'late presenters'. There are many effective treatments for HIV available; however, for late presenting patients the investigators do not know which type of treatment performs best. This is the first large study to compare treatments for patients in this situation, and the investigators hope that the results of this study will help doctors decide which treatments to use in the future. The two different types of treatment the investigators are comparing both contain a mixture of drugs that work together to combat HIV: The Boosted Protease Inhibitor combination (PI) which is a combination tablet containing: darunavir, cobicistat, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide. It was approved for use in Europe under the brand name Symtuza®. The Integrase Inhibitor combination (INI). Which is a combination tablet containing: bictegravir, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide. This is a a newer combination which was approved for use in Europe in June 2018 under the brand name of Biktarvy®. The main difference between the two treatments is how each one fights a HIV infection. They both stop a part of the virus from working (i.e. inhibit it), to prevent it from making copies of itself. The PI treatment contains drugs to stop the protease part of the virus, whereas the INI treatment contains drugs to stop the integrase part. In recent studies, it appears that treatments containing integrase inhibitors may be better for late presenting patients. They have been shown to quickly bring down the amount of virus in the body, and the side effects may be more acceptable to late presenters. To compare the two treatments, half of the participants on this study will be given the PI treatment, and the other half will be given the INI treatment.

Clinical Trial Description

The effectiveness of HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) has consistently improved over the years. This is largely due to newer drugs having improved antiviral effectiveness and more tolerable side effect profiles; resulting in better viral suppression and improved treatment adherence. On the other hand, most recent clinical trials look at the effectiveness of ART in patients with less advanced disease. These patients usually suffer from less related diseases, drug-drug interactions, and other risks for treatment failure. Outside of these trials, the number of patients who present to clinic with a more developed advanced HIV infection, known as 'late presenters', remains high across Europe. Trials for these patients have tended to focus on the time of starting treatment and the management of infections. Much less is known about which ART treatments perform best for these late presenting patients; particularly in terms of virus suppression, immune system recovery, side effects and improvement of AIDs related diseases. No specific drug combinations have been compared in appropriate clinical trials before, and the international guidelines for first line treatment judge all therapies as equal standard of care for these patients. The investigators anticipate that Integrase inhibitor containing regimes may be better suited to patients with advanced disease, due to their beneficial side-effect profile and ability to rapidly decrease viral load levels. Therefore the investigators are conducting this clinical trial to compare an integrase inhibitor regime, against a protease inhibitor regime in patients with advanced HIV infection. The aim of the study is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Biktarvy® against Symtuza®. Patients will be recruited from sites across Europe, and randomized onto either arm of the study. After randomisation onto either treatment regime, patients will attend approximately 9 follow-up visits over the course of a year. During these visits, patients will be asked to complete two questionnaires, to assess their quality of life and HIV symptoms. They will also be asked to provide a number of blood samples. These samples are to ensure that the patient is not resistant to the study drug and that their disease is not worsening. Samples to test for study drug resistance will be shipped to a laboratory for analysis in the even that the patient experiences virological failure. Biktarvy® will be supplied from Gilead and Symtuza® will be provided by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. ;

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
• HIV Infections
• HIV/AIDS

• NCT number: NCT03696160
• Study type: Interventional
• Source: NEAT ID Foundation
• Status: Active, not recruiting
• Phase: Phase 3
• Start date: March 5, 2019
• Completion date: June 2024