Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32711800›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2020

Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide vs emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (DISCOVER): primary results from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

Kenneth H Mayer, Jean-Michel Molina, Melanie A Thompson, Peter L Anderson, Karam C Mounzer, Joss J De Wet, Edwin DeJesus, Heiko Jessen, Robert M Grant, Peter J Ruane and 14 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02842086 (A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Emtricitabine and Tenofovir Alafenamide), which is not on this map. Cited by 228 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
228citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02842086 phase3active not recruitingnot on this map

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Emtricitabine and Tenofovir Alafenamide (F/TAF) Fixed-Dose Combination Once Daily for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Men and Transgender Women Who Have Sex With Men and Are At Risk of HIV-1 Infection

TypeinterventionalSponsorGilead SciencesRan2016 to 2026Enrolled5,399ConditionsPre-Exposure Prophylaxis of HIV-1 InfectionArmsF/TAF, F/TDF, F/TAF Placebo, F/TDF Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

228 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 414 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Guideline
  3. Canadian guideline on HIV pre- and postexposure prophylaxis: 2025 update.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

168 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors at 14 institutions in 5 countries.

Kenneth H MayerThe Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jean-Michel MolinaInfectious Diseases Department, Hopitaux Saint-Louis Lariboisière, University of Paris and INSERM U944, Paris, France.
Melanie A ThompsonAIDS Research Consortium of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Peter L AndersonDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.
Karam C MounzerPhiladelphia FIGHT, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Joss J De WetSpectrum Health, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Edwin DeJesusOrlando Immunology Center, Orlando, FL, USA.
Heiko JessenPraxis Jessen(2) + Kollegen, Berlin, Germany.
Robert M GrantSan Francisco AIDS Foundation, and University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Peter J RuaneRuane Medical and Liver Health Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Pamela WongDepartment of Biometrics, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA.
Ramin EbrahimiDepartment of Biometrics, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA.
Lijie ZhongDepartment of Biometrics, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA.
Anita MathiasDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA.
Christian CallebautDepartment of Virology, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA.
Sean E CollinsDepartment of HIV and Emerging Viral Infections Clinical Research, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA.
Moupali DasDepartment of HIV and Emerging Viral Infections Clinical Research, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA. Electronic address: moupali.as@gilead.com.
Scott McCallisterDepartment of HIV and Emerging Viral Infections Clinical Research, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA.
Diana M BrainardDepartment of HIV and Emerging Viral Infections Clinical Research, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA.
Cynthia BrinsonCentral Texas Clinical Research, Austin, TX, USA.
Amanda ClarkeRoyal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Brighton, UK.
Pep CollBCN Checkpoint and IrsiCaixa-AIDS Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.
Frank A PostKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
C Bradley HareDepartment of Adult and Family Medicine, Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Gilead Sciences (United States) · USAIDS Research Consortium of Atlanta · USFenway Health · USIrsiCaixa · ESKaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center · USKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBNational Health Service · GBOrlando Immunology Center · USOrthopädische Praxis · DEPhiladelphia Fight · USRuane Medical · USUniversité Paris Cité · FRUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTenofovir alafenamide shows high antiviral efficacy and improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate when used for HIV treatment. Here, we report primary results from a blinded phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide versus emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention.

methodsThis study is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 94 community, public health, and hospital-associated clinics located in regions of Europe and North America, where there is a high incidence of HIV or prevalence of people living with HIV, or both. We enrolled adult cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women who have sex with men, both with a high risk of acquiring HIV on the basis of their self-reported sexual behaviour in the past 12 weeks or their recent history (within 24 weeks of enrolment) of bacterial sexually transmitted infections. Participants with current or previous use of PrEP with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were not excluded. We used a computer-generated random allocation sequence to randomly assign (1:1) participants to receive either emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group), or emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). As such, all participants were given two tablets. The trial sponsor, investigators, participants, and the study staff who provided the study drugs, assessed the outcomes, and collected the data were masked to group assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was incident HIV infection, which was assessed when all participants had completed 48 weeks of follow-up and half of all participants had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. This full analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug and had at least one post-baseline HIV test. Non-inferiority of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was established if the upper bound of the 95·003% CI of the HIV incidence rate ratio (IRR) was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62. We prespecified six secondary bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints to evaluate using the safety analysis set. This analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02842086, and is no longer recruiting.

findingsBetween Sept 13, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 5387 (92%) of 5857 participants were randomly assigned and received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (n=2694) or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=2693). At the time of the primary efficacy analysis (ie, when all participants had completed 48 weeks and 50% had completed 96 weeks) emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the IRR, was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62 (IRR 0·47 [95% CI 0·19-1·15]). After 8756 person-years of follow-up, 22 participants were diagnosed with HIV, seven participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group (0·16 infections per 100 person-years [95% CI 0·06-0·33]), and 15 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (0·34 infections per 100 person-years [0·19-0·56]). Both regimens were well tolerated, with a low number of participants reporting adverse events that led to discontinuation of the study drug (36 [1%] of 2694 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group vs 49 [2%] of 2693 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was superior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in all six prespecified bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints.

interpretationDaily emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide shows non-inferior efficacy to daily emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, and the number of adverse events for both regimens was low. Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide had more favourable effects on bone mineral density and biomarkers of renal safety than emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

fundingGilead Sciences.

Indexed as

AdenineAdultAnti-HIV AgentsDouble-Blind MethodEmtricitabineEmtricitabine, Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Drug CombinationEuropeFemaleHIV-1HIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleNorth AmericaPlacebosPre-Exposure ProphylaxisAdenineAnti-HIV AgentsEmtricitabineemtricitabine tenofovir alafenamideEmtricitabine, Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Drug CombinationPlacebosTenofovir

Identifiers

PMID32711800
PMCPMC9665936
OpenAlexW3045256412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.