The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Once-daily dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48 week results from the randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority SPRING-2 study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND Dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) is a once-daily HIV integrase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity and a favourable safety profile. We compared dolutegravir with HIV integrase inhibitor raltegravir, as initial treatment for adults with HIV-1. METHODS SPRING-2 is a 96 week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study that began on Oct 19, 2010, at 100 sites in Canada, USA, Australia, and Europe. Treatment-naive adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with HIV-1 infection and HIV-1 RNA concentrations of 1000 copies per mL or greater were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or raltegravir (400 mg twice daily). Study drugs were given with coformulated tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine. Randomisation was stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 copies per mL or >100,000 copies per mL) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Investigators were not masked to HIV-1 RNA results before randomisation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. Main secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in CD4 cell counts, incidence and severity of adverse events, changes in laboratory parameters, and genotypic or phenotypic evidence of resistance. Our primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227824. FINDINGS 411 patients were randomly allocated to receive dolutegravir and 411 to receive raltegravir and received at least one dose of study drug. At 48 weeks, 361 (88%) patients in the dolutegravir group achieved an HIV-1 RNA value of less than 50 copies per mL compared with 351 (85%) in the raltegravir group (adjusted difference 2·5%; 95% CI -2·2 to 7·1). Adverse events were similar between treatment groups. The most common events were nausea (59 [14%] patients in the dolutegravir group vs 53 [13%] in the raltegravir group), headache (51 [12%] vs 48 [12%]), nasopharyngitis (46 [11%] vs 48 [12%]), and diarrhoea (47 [11%] in each group). Few patients had drug-related serious adverse events (three [<1%] vs five [1%]), and few had adverse events leading to discontinuation (ten [2%] vs seven [2%] in each group). CD4 cell counts increased from baseline to week 48 in both treatment groups by a median of 230 cells per μL. Rates of graded laboratory toxic effects were similar. We noted no evidence of treatment-emergent resistance in patients with virological failure on dolutegravir, whereas of the patients with virologic failure who received raltegravir, one (6%) had integrase treatment-emergent resistance and four (21%) had nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors treatment-emergent resistance. INTERPRETATION The non-inferior efficacy and similar safety profile of dolutegravir compared with raltegravir means that if approved, combination treatment with once-daily dolutegravir and fixed-dose nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors would be an effective new option for treatment of HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. FUNDING ViiV Healthcare.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Günthard, H. F., Saag, M. S., Benson, C. A., del Rio, C., Eron, J. J., Gallant, J. E., Hoy, J. F., Mugavero, M. J., Sax, P. E., Thompson, M. A., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.8900 · Cited by 656
Clotet, B., Feinberg, J., van Lunzen, J., Khuong-Josses, M.-A., Antinori, A., Dumitru, I., Pokrovskiy, V., Fehr, J., Ortiz, R., Saag, M., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60084-2 · Cited by 507
Self-citationRaffi, F., Jaeger, H., Quiros-Roldan, E., Albrecht, H., Belonosova, E., Gatell, J. M., Baril, J.-G., Domingo, P., Brennan, C., Almond, S., et al. (2013) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70257-3 · Cited by 379
Self-citationNorwood, J., Turner, M., Bofill, C., Rebeiro, P., Shepherd, B., Bebawy, S., Hulgan, T., Raffanti, S., Haas, D. W., Sterling, T. R., et al. (2017) · JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes · doi:10.1097/qai.0000000000001525 · Cited by 284
Reddy, K. P., Parker, R. A., Losina, E., Baggett, T. P., Paltiel, A. D., Rigotti, N. A., Weinstein, M. C., Freedberg, K. A., & Walensky, R. P. (2016) · Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/infdis/jiw430 · Cited by 135
Metadata
- Authors
- Raffi, F., Rachlis, A., Stellbrink, H.-J., Hardy, W. D., Torti, C., Orkin, C., Bloch, M., Podzamczer, D., Pokrovsky, V., Pulido, F., Almond, S., Margolis, D., Brennan, C., & Min, S.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 381
- Issue
- 9868
- Pages
- 735-743
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2139430929
- Cited by
- 548
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 47.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Once-daily dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48 week results from the randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority SPRING-2 study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61853-4
- The paper
- Raffi, F., Rachlis, A., Stellbrink, H.-J., Hardy, W. D., Torti, C., Orkin, C., Bloch, M., Podzamczer, D., Pokrovsky, V., Pulido, F., Almond, S., Margolis, D., Brennan, C., & Min, S. (2013). Once-daily dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48 week results from the randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority SPRING-2 study. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61853-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.