Long-acting intramuscular cabotegravir and rilpivirine in adults with HIV-1 infection (LATTE-2): 96-week results of a randomised, open-label, phase 2b, non-inferiority trial.

Background: Cabotegravir and rilpivirine are antiretroviral drugs in development as long-acting injectable formulations. The LATTE-2 study evaluated long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression through 96 weeks.

Methods: In this randomised, phase 2b, open-label study, treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 initially received oral cabotegravir 30 mg plus abacavir-lamivudine 600-300 mg once daily. The objective of this study was to select an intramuscular dosing regimen based on a comparison of the antiviral activity, tolerability, and safety of the two intramuscular dosing regimens relative to oral cabotegravir plus abacavir-lamivudine. After a 20-week induction period on oral cabotegravir plus abacavir-lamivudine, patients with viral suppression (plasma HIV-1 RNA 50 copies per mL) were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to intramuscular long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine at 4-week intervals (long-acting cabotegravir 400 mg plus rilpivirine 600 mg; two 2 mL injections) or 8-week intervals (long-acting cabotegravir 600 mg plus rilpivirine 900 mg; two 3 mL injections) or continued oral cabotegravir plus abacavir-lamivudine. Randomisation was computer-generated with stratification by HIV-1 RNA (50 copies per mL, yes or no) during the first 12 weeks of the induction period. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with viral suppression at week 32 (as defined by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), protocol-defined virological failures, and safety events through 96 weeks. All randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug during the maintenance period were included in the primary efficacy and safety analyses. The primary analysis used a Bayesian approach to evaluate the hypothesis that the proportion with viral suppression for each long-acting regimen is not worse than the oral regimen proportion by more than 10% (denoted comparable) according to a prespecified decision rule (ie, posterior probability for comparability >90%). Difference in proportions and associated 95% CIs were supportive to the primary analysis. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02120352.