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

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

246 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2016-10-27

Study Completion Date

2018-04-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

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.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

A Clinical Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate/Emtricitabine/Rilpivirine (TDF/FTC/RPV) Versus TDF/FTC/Efavirenz (TDF/FTC/EFV) in Patients With Undetectable Plasma HIV-1 RNA on Current First-line Treatment

NCT01709084

Human Immunodeficiency Virus-type 1 Infection

COMPLETED PHASE3

Study to Evaluate Switching From a Regimen Consisting of the Efavirenz/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Single-Tablet Regimen (STR) to the Emtricitabine/Rilpivirine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate STR

NCT01286740

HIV-1 Infection

COMPLETED PHASE2

Study to Evaluate Switching From Regimens Consisting of a Ritonavir-boosted Protease Inhibitor (PI) and Two Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NRTIs) to a Fixed-dose Tablet Containing Emtricitabine/Rilpivirine/Tenofovir DF

NCT01252940

HIV-1 Infection

COMPLETED PHASE3

Second-line Therapy Antiretroviral in Patients Who Failed Non-nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (NNRTI) - Based Regimens

NCT00627055

HIV Infections

COMPLETED PHASE4

ALternative TEnofovir Dosing in Adults With Moderate Renal Function Impairment

NCT01671982

HIV

COMPLETED PHASE1

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

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.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Anti-Retroviral Agents Efavirenz HIV-1-infection Sustained Virologic Response Dyslipidemias Rilpivirine

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

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

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Rilpivirine

Intervention Type DRUG

Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Rilpivirine to compare the non-inferiority of efficacy and adverse effects to Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Efavirenz in patients with virological suppression

Continuing TDF/FTC/EFV

Continuing Tenofovir 300 mg/day + Emtricitabine 200 mg/day + Efavirenz 600 mg/day Intervention: Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Efavirenz

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Efavirenz

Intervention Type DRUG

as a active comparator

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

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

Intervention Type DRUG

Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Efavirenz

as a active comparator

Intervention Type DRUG

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

TDF/FTC/RPV TDF/FTC/EFV

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

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