Development

Gilead and Merck to seek approval for HIV combo after positive Phase III

Gilead and Merck to seek approval for HIV combo after positive Phase III

Gilead Sciences (Nasdaq: GILD) and Merck (NYSE: MRK) reported that the investigational islatravir lenacapavir HIV treatment met its primary efficacy endpoint in both Phase III ISLEND trials, a result that positions the combination as a potential first approved long-acting oral HIV treatment taken once weekly. The topline data, drawn from two distinct switch populations, demonstrated non-inferiority to current standard-of-care regimens at Week 48 — a milestone that sets the stage for regulatory submissions globally.

The combination pairs islatravir, Merck's nucleoside analog that blocks HIV-1 replication through reverse transcriptase translocation inhibition, with lenacapavir, Gilead's first-in-class capsid inhibitor HIV therapy that disrupts viral replication across multiple stages of the lifecycle. The pharmacokinetic profiles of both agents support once-weekly oral dosing, a meaningful departure from the daily tablet regimens that have defined HIV treatment for decades.

Trial data

The ISLEND-1 and ISLEND-2 trials together constitute the core Phase III HIV clinical trial program for the ISL/LEN regimen, each addressing a distinct patient population of virologically suppressed adults — defined as HIV-1 RNA levels below 50 copies/mL — who switched from an existing antiretroviral regimen.

ISLEND-1 is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study in which participants on Gilead's Biktarvy (bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide) for at least six months were randomized 1:1 to switch to once-weekly ISL/LEN or continue daily bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide. The primary endpoint — the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA at or above 50 copies/mL at Week 48 by the FDA snapshot algorithm — was met, with ISL/LEN demonstrating statistical non-inferiority to bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide. The safety profile was described as generally comparable to the comparator, with no new safety signals identified.

ISLEND-2, an open-label, randomized, active-controlled study, enrolled virologically suppressed adults switching from a broader range of stable standard-of-care antiretroviral regimens — including integrase strand transfer inhibitors, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, boosted protease inhibitors, and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. ISL/LEN was again statistically non-inferior to continued daily oral antiretroviral therapy at Week 48, with a comparable tolerability profile. Key secondary endpoints across both trials include virologic suppression rates and virologic failure rates at Week 96, CD4 cell count changes, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events — data that remain pending as both studies continue to follow participants.

The AllSci BriefSystematic R&D and deal news. Daily.

The topline release does not include specific numerical response rates, which the companies indicated will be submitted for presentation at a future scientific congress. That absence limits the ability to assess the magnitude of any virologic failure differences between arms, a detail that regulators and clinicians will scrutinize closely before the once-weekly HIV medication can be positioned as a routine switch option.

Competitive context

The HIV treatment landscape is currently anchored by daily single-tablet regimens, most notably bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, which has become the dominant standard of care for virologically suppressed adults. The only approved long-acting HIV treatment option currently available is Gilead's own Sunlenca (lenacapavir), administered as a twice-yearly subcutaneous injection, alongside ViiV Healthcare's Cabenuva (cabotegravir/rilpivirine), a monthly or every-two-months injectable combination. An oral once-weekly HIV medication, if approved, would occupy a distinct and currently vacant position between daily pills and injectable regimens — potentially appealing to patients who prefer oral administration but find daily dosing burdensome. Cross-trial comparisons are limited by differences in study populations, endpoints, and design, and the absence of numerical efficacy data from the ISLEND readout makes direct benchmarking premature. Gilead and Merck have indicated plans to file with regulatory authorities globally, though no specific submission timelines were disclosed.


This article was generated with AI assistance and reviewed and edited by the AllSci editorial team Explore more at AllSci News: https://allsci.com/news/


Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article