Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 6:51 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-30 @ 7:55 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT04311957
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2020-08-03
First Post:
2020-03-15
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Continuation of Protease-Inhibitor Based Second-Line Therapy vs. Switch to B/F/TAF in Virologically Suppressed Adults
Sponsor:
Haitian Group for the Study of Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial to Compare the Efficacy of Switching From Protease-Inhibitor Based Second-Line Therapy to Bictegravir-Tenofovir Alafenamide-Emtricitabine in Virologically Suppressed Adults in Haiti
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2020-07
Last Known Status:
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
This randomized trial compares the efficacy of switching to a fixed-dose combination of B/F/TAF versus continuing a boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) regimen in HIV-1 infected participants who are virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA \<200 copies) on a second-line bPI regimen. Half of participants will receive B/F/TAF and half will continue a bPI regimen. The hypothesize is that B/F/TAF will have efficacy that is non-inferior to the boosted PI regimen.
Detailed Description:
The second generation integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) dolutegravir (DTG) and bictegravir (BIC) are widely prescribed for the treatment of HIV, due to their favorable tolerability and toxicity profile, durable efficacy, and high barrier to resistance. However, there are limited data to guide the management of patients who are already virally suppressed on a second-line bPI regimen.
Though bPIs have a high barrier to resistance and durable virologic efficacy, they have several important drug-drug interactions, are associated with unfavorable long-term metabolic effects, and may be poorly tolerated. For these reasons, a second-generation INSTI would be preferable to a boosted PI regimen, as long INSTIs are demonstrated to have non-inferior efficacy for patients who are already suppressed on a second-line bPI regimen.
In the proposed study, the efficacy of continuing the bPI regimen will be compared to switching to B/F/TAF.
Though bPIs have a high barrier to resistance and durable virologic efficacy, they have several important drug-drug interactions, are associated with unfavorable long-term metabolic effects, and may be poorly tolerated. For these reasons, a second-generation INSTI would be preferable to a boosted PI regimen, as long INSTIs are demonstrated to have non-inferior efficacy for patients who are already suppressed on a second-line bPI regimen.
In the proposed study, the efficacy of continuing the bPI regimen will be compared to switching to B/F/TAF.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
True
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: