Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT03251690

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

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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

Exclusion criteria

  • history of NRTI resistance
  • on medication that potentially interact with study drug
  • denied to participate in the study

Treatment and study plan

tenofovir/emtricitabine/rilpivirine

Drug

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

Other names: TDF/FTC/RPV

Tenofovir/emtricitabine/efavirenz

Drug

as a active comparator

Other names: TDF/FTC/EFV

Primary outcomes

  1. Sustained virological response

    Time frame: 12 months

    maintain the undetectable HIV viral load

Secondary outcomes

  1. Lipid adverse outcome

    Time frame: 12 months

    Different in blood lipid profiles, including triglycerides, cholesterol, HDL, and LDL

  2. Neurological adverse outcome

    Time frame: 12 months

    Neurological adverse events such as dizziness

  3. Cost -saving after switching regimens

    Time frame: 12 months

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Mahidol University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Switching Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Efavirenz to Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Rilpivirine Versus Continuing Tenofovir/Emtricitabine/Efavirenz in HIV1-infected Patients With Complete Virological Suppression

Acronym: STEREOS

Important dates

Study start
2016
Primary completion
2018
Study completion
2018
First posted
Aug 16, 2017
Registry last updated
May 7, 2019

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.