CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR SYMTUZA
✉ Email this page to a colleague
All Clinical Trials for symtuza
| Trial ID | Title | Status | Sponsor | Phase | Start Date | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCT03696160 ↗ | The Late Presenter Treatment Optimisation Study | Recruiting | Gilead Sciences | Phase 3 | 2019-03-05 | The main purpose of this study is to compare two different types of HIV treatments, in terms of effectiveness and improvement of side effects, for patients who are diagnosed with a more advanced HIV infection. Patients with advanced HIV infections are otherwise known as 'late presenters'. There are many effective treatments for HIV available; however, for late presenting patients the investigators do not know which type of treatment performs best. This is the first large study to compare treatments for patients in this situation, and the investigators hope that the results of this study will help doctors decide which treatments to use in the future. The two different types of treatment the investigators are comparing both contain a mixture of drugs that work together to combat HIV: The Boosted Protease Inhibitor combination (PI) which is a combination tablet containing: darunavir, cobicistat, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide. It was approved for use in Europe under the brand name Symtuza®. The Integrase Inhibitor combination (INI). Which is a combination tablet containing: bictegravir, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide. This is a a newer combination which was approved for use in Europe in June 2018 under the brand name of Biktarvy®. The main difference between the two treatments is how each one fights a HIV infection. They both stop a part of the virus from working (i.e. inhibit it), to prevent it from making copies of itself. The PI treatment contains drugs to stop the protease part of the virus, whereas the INI treatment contains drugs to stop the integrase part. In recent studies, it appears that treatments containing integrase inhibitors may be better for late presenting patients. They have been shown to quickly bring down the amount of virus in the body, and the side effects may be more acceptable to late presenters. To compare the two treatments, half of the participants on this study will be given the PI treatment, and the other half will be given the INI treatment. |
| NCT03696160 ↗ | The Late Presenter Treatment Optimisation Study | Recruiting | Janssen Pharmaceuticals | Phase 3 | 2019-03-05 | The main purpose of this study is to compare two different types of HIV treatments, in terms of effectiveness and improvement of side effects, for patients who are diagnosed with a more advanced HIV infection. Patients with advanced HIV infections are otherwise known as 'late presenters'. There are many effective treatments for HIV available; however, for late presenting patients the investigators do not know which type of treatment performs best. This is the first large study to compare treatments for patients in this situation, and the investigators hope that the results of this study will help doctors decide which treatments to use in the future. The two different types of treatment the investigators are comparing both contain a mixture of drugs that work together to combat HIV: The Boosted Protease Inhibitor combination (PI) which is a combination tablet containing: darunavir, cobicistat, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide. It was approved for use in Europe under the brand name Symtuza®. The Integrase Inhibitor combination (INI). Which is a combination tablet containing: bictegravir, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide. This is a a newer combination which was approved for use in Europe in June 2018 under the brand name of Biktarvy®. The main difference between the two treatments is how each one fights a HIV infection. They both stop a part of the virus from working (i.e. inhibit it), to prevent it from making copies of itself. The PI treatment contains drugs to stop the protease part of the virus, whereas the INI treatment contains drugs to stop the integrase part. In recent studies, it appears that treatments containing integrase inhibitors may be better for late presenting patients. They have been shown to quickly bring down the amount of virus in the body, and the side effects may be more acceptable to late presenters. To compare the two treatments, half of the participants on this study will be given the PI treatment, and the other half will be given the INI treatment. |
| NCT03696160 ↗ | The Late Presenter Treatment Optimisation Study | Recruiting | NEAT ID Foundation | Phase 3 | 2019-03-05 | The main purpose of this study is to compare two different types of HIV treatments, in terms of effectiveness and improvement of side effects, for patients who are diagnosed with a more advanced HIV infection. Patients with advanced HIV infections are otherwise known as 'late presenters'. There are many effective treatments for HIV available; however, for late presenting patients the investigators do not know which type of treatment performs best. This is the first large study to compare treatments for patients in this situation, and the investigators hope that the results of this study will help doctors decide which treatments to use in the future. The two different types of treatment the investigators are comparing both contain a mixture of drugs that work together to combat HIV: The Boosted Protease Inhibitor combination (PI) which is a combination tablet containing: darunavir, cobicistat, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide. It was approved for use in Europe under the brand name Symtuza®. The Integrase Inhibitor combination (INI). Which is a combination tablet containing: bictegravir, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide. This is a a newer combination which was approved for use in Europe in June 2018 under the brand name of Biktarvy®. The main difference between the two treatments is how each one fights a HIV infection. They both stop a part of the virus from working (i.e. inhibit it), to prevent it from making copies of itself. The PI treatment contains drugs to stop the protease part of the virus, whereas the INI treatment contains drugs to stop the integrase part. In recent studies, it appears that treatments containing integrase inhibitors may be better for late presenting patients. They have been shown to quickly bring down the amount of virus in the body, and the side effects may be more acceptable to late presenters. To compare the two treatments, half of the participants on this study will be given the PI treatment, and the other half will be given the INI treatment. |
| >Trial ID | >Title | >Status | >Sponsor | >Phase | >Start Date | >Summary |
Clinical Trial Conditions for symtuza
Condition Name
Clinical Trial Locations for symtuza
Trials by Country
Clinical Trial Progress for symtuza
Clinical Trial Phase
Clinical Trial Sponsors for symtuza
Sponsor Name
