2011
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60983-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

26
334
2
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 329 publications
(363 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
26
334
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Compared with efavirenz, rilpivirine led to minimal changes in LDL-C, HDL-C, TC, and triglycerides in 2 recently reported trials. 22,23 Similar observations were reported when etravirine was compared with efavirenz in the Study of Etravirine Neuropsychiatric Symptoms Versus Efavirenz Trial. 24 In the etravirine group, TC, HDL-C, and LDL-C increased by 0.40 mmol/L, 0.10 mmol/L, and 0.20 mmol/L, respectively.…”
Section: Hiv and Cholesterolsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…Compared with efavirenz, rilpivirine led to minimal changes in LDL-C, HDL-C, TC, and triglycerides in 2 recently reported trials. 22,23 Similar observations were reported when etravirine was compared with efavirenz in the Study of Etravirine Neuropsychiatric Symptoms Versus Efavirenz Trial. 24 In the etravirine group, TC, HDL-C, and LDL-C increased by 0.40 mmol/L, 0.10 mmol/L, and 0.20 mmol/L, respectively.…”
Section: Hiv and Cholesterolsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…More than 80% of viruses resistant to efavirenz or nevirapine were also resistant to rilpivirine. This suggests that care should be taken when using rilpivirine to treat HIV-1 infection, even in treatment-naive patients, 10 because of the high prevalence (2.8%) of transmitted NNRTI-resistant viruses. 11 Resistance to raltegravir was only analysed in patients taking raltegravir at the time of sampling, and was found in 66% of cases, in keeping with data from the ANRS Aquitaine CO3 Cohort.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fixed-dose combination Atripla and the individual components have been evaluated in a number of clinical trials in comparison to alternate agents including NNRTI (nevirapine, etravirine [ETR], rilpivirine [RPV]), ritonovir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI-r) (lopinavir-ritonavir [LPV-r], atazanavir-ritonavir [ATZ-r]) integrase inhibitors (raltegravir [RAL], elvitegravir), and CCR-5 inhibitors (maraviroc). [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] In the studies to date, largely of noninferiority design, and using the primary endpoints as defined by the studies, Atripla has not been beaten for efficacy by any other agent.…”
Section: Efficacymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…137 Two Phase III clinical trials (ECHO and THRIVE) have shown the Complera combination to be noninferior to Atripla in treatmentnaĂŻve patients with HIV-1 infection. 27,28 Patients taking RPV reported fewer neurological side effects than those taking EFV (17% vs 38%) had a better lipid profile on therapy and were less likely to discontinue the regimen due to treatment side effects (3% vs 8%). In subgroup analysis, patients in the RPV arm with a baseline viral load $ 100,000 copies/mL had a significantly higher rate of virologic failure than in the EFV arm at 48 weeks (15% vs 6%), and viral failure was associated with an increased rate of drug resistance.…”
Section: New Strsmentioning
confidence: 99%