Slideset on: Gathe J, da Silva BA, Cohen DE, et al. A once-daily lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen is noninferior to twice-daily dosing and results in.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Switch to RAL-containing regimen - Canadian Study - CHEER - Montreal Study - EASIER - SWITCHMRK - SPIRAL.
Advertisements

Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r  EFV vs LPV/r vs EFV + LPV/r –A5142 –Mexican Study  NVP vs ATV/r –ARTEN  EFV vs ATV/r –A5202.
Switch to ATV/r + RAL  HARNESS Study. ATV/r 300/100 mg qd + TDF/FTC N = 37 N = 72 ATV/r 300/100 mg qd + RAL 400 mg bid  Design Randomisation 2: 1 Open-label.
Switch to TDF/FTC/RPV  SPIRIT Study. SPIRIT study: Switch PI/r + 2 NRTI to TDF/FTC/RPV TDF/FTC/RPV STR 24 weeks 48 weeks Primary Endpoint Secondary Endpoint.
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089  LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TCMONARK  LPV/r QD vs BIDM M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2 NRTIGARDEL.
Comparison of RTV vs Cobi  GS-US Gallant JE. JID 2013;208:32-9 GS-US  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of COBI compared with RTV.
Phase 2 of new ARVs  Fostemsavir, prodrug of temsavir (attachment inhibitor) –AI Study  TAF (TFV prodrug) –Study –Study  Doravirine.
Switch to ATV/r-containing regimen  ATAZIP. Mallolas J, JAIDS 2009;51:29-36 ATAZIP ATAZIP Study: Switch LPV/r to ATV/r  Design  Endpoints –Primary:
Switch to RAL-containing regimen  Canadian Study  CHEER  Montreal Study  EASIER  SWITCHMRK  SPIRAL  Switch ER.
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089  LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TCMONARK  LPV/r QD vs BIDM M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2 NRTIGARDEL.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
Switch to ATV-containing regimen  ARIES Study  INDUMA Study  ASSURE Study.
1 Atazanavir (ATV) With Ritonavir (RTV) or Saquinavir (SQV) vs Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/RTV) in Patients With Multiple Virologic Failures 24-Week Results.
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy  MONOI  MONET  PROTEA  DRV600.
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI  QDMRK  SPRING-2. Eron JJ, Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11: QDMRK  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of RAL QD: % HIV.
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089  LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TCMONARK  LPV/r QD vs BIDM M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2 NRTIGARDEL.
02-15 INFC Substitution of raltegravir for ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in HIV-infected patients: The SPIRAL study* 1 Date of preparation:
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
Switch PI/R to ETR  Etraswitch. Etraswitch Study: Switch PI/r to ETR Continuation of current PI/R + 2 NRTI N = 21 N = 22 ETR 400 mg QD* + 2 NRTI  Design.
Switch to ATV- or ATV/r-containing regimen Switch to ATV/r-containing regimen  ATAZIP Switch to ATV ± r-containing regimen  SWAN Study  SLOAT Study.
Switch to RAL-containing regimen  Canadian Study  CHEER  Montreal Study  EASIER  SWITCHMRK  SPIRAL  Switch ER.
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089  LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TCMONARK  LPV/r QD vs BIDM M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2 NRTIGARDEL.
Comparison of NRTI combinations  ZDV/3TC vs TDF + FTC –Study 934  ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC –HEAT Study –ACTG A5202 Study –ASSERT Study  FTC/TDF vs FTC/TAF.
Comparison of RTV vs Cobi  GS-US Gallant JE. JID 2013;208:32-9 GS-US  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of COBI compared with RTV.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
FLAMINGO Efficacy and safety of dolutegravir (DTG) in treatment-naïve subjects SE/HIV/0023/14c January 2014.
HAART Initiation Within 2 Weeks of Seroconversion Associated With Virologic and Immunologic Benefits Slideset on: Hecht FM, Wang L, Collier A, et al. A.
POWER 3 Study Confirms Safety and Efficacy of Darunavir/Ritonavir in Treatment-Experienced Patients Slideset on: Molina JM, Cohen C, Katlama C, et al.
ACTG 5142: First-line Antiretroviral Therapy With Efavirenz Plus NRTIs Has Greater Antiretroviral Activity Than Lopinavir/Ritonavir Plus NRTIs Slideset.
First-Line Treatment of HIV Infection With Either NNRTI- or PI-Based Regimens Effective for Long-term Disease Control Slideset on: MacArthur RD, Novak.
KLEAN Study: Fosamprenavir/Ritonavir Associated With Similar Efficacy and Safety as Lopinavir/Ritonavir SGC in Treatment- Naive Patients Slideset on: Eron.
NRTI-sparing  SPARTAN  PROGRESS  RADAR  NEAT001/ANRS 143  A  VEMAN  MODERN.
Tipranavir/Ritonavir Superior to Comparator PI/Ritonavir at Week 48 in Multiclass-Experienced Patients Slideset on: Hicks CB, Cahn P, Cooper DA, et al.
Rilpivirine-TDF-FTC versus Efavirenz-TDF-FTC STaR Trial
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
ARV-trial.com Switch to TDF/FTC/EFV AI Study 1.
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Switch to RPV-TDF-FTC from Ritonavir-boosted PI Regimen SPIRIT STUDY
Atazanavir + ritonavir vs. Lopinavir-ritonavir CASTLE Study
Saquinavir + RTV versus Lopinavir-RTV in Treatment-Naïve GEMINI Trial
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
ARV-trial.com Switch to TDF/FTC/EFV AI Study 1.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
ARV-trial.com Switch to FTC + ddI + EFV ALIZE 1.
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Presentation transcript:

Slideset on: Gathe J, da Silva BA, Cohen DE, et al. A once-daily lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen is noninferior to twice-daily dosing and results in similar safety and tolerability in antiretroviral- naive subjects through 48 weeks. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;50: Study Findings Support Once-Daily Dosing of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Tablets in Treatment-Naive Individuals This program is supported by an educational grant from

clinicaloptions.com/hiv Once-Daily vs Twice-Daily Dosing of LPV/RTV Tablets in Treatment-Naive Individuals Background  Interpretation of previous studies evaluating relative efficacy of once- daily vs twice-daily LPV/RTV complicated by use of now-discontinued SGC formulation (or both SGC and tablets) rather than current tablet formulation [1-3]  Tablet formulation of LPV/RTV has improved convenience  Current study evaluated once-daily vs twice-daily administration of LPV/RTV tablet or SGC formulations in combination with TDF/FTC [4] –LPV/RTV SGC vs tablet compared for first 8 weeks of study only, then all patients received tablet –First study evaluating once-daily LPV/RTV tablets –Week 48 primary endpoint data reported from ongoing 96-week 1. Molina JM, et al. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2007;23: Mildvan D, et al. CROI Abstract Ortiz R, et al. AIDS. 2008;22: Gathe J, et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;50:

clinicaloptions.com/hiv Once-Daily vs Twice-Daily Dosing of LPV/RTV Tablets in Treatment-Naive Individuals Antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 1000 copies/mL (N = 664) LPV/RTV SGC* 800/200 mg QD (n = 166) LPV/RTV SGC* 400/100 mg BID (n = 165) LPV/RTV tablets* 400/100 mg BID (n = 166) Week 8 LPV/RTV tablets* 800/200 mg QD (n = 167) Week 48 primary endpoint, current analysis Week 96 *All arms received TDF 300 mg QD plus FTC 200 mg QD. LPV/RTV tablets 800/200 mg QD (n = 333) LPV/RTV tablets 400/100 mg BID (n = 331)

clinicaloptions.com/hiv Once-Daily vs Twice-Daily Dosing of LPV/RTV Tablets in Treatment-Naive Individuals Description of Analysis  Primary efficacy endpoint –HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL at Week 48 using ITT NC = F analysis –Once-daily dosing considered to be noninferior to twice-daily dosing if lower limit of CI for difference in efficacy between the 2 arms > -12%  Primary safety endpoint –Treatment-emergent adverse event of diarrhea through Week 8  Secondary safety endpoints –Moderate/severe study drug–related treatment-emergent adverse events through Week 48 –Grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities through Week 48 –Treatment-emergent adverse event of diarrhea at Weeks 8 and 48 Gathe J, et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;50:

clinicaloptions.com/hiv Once-Daily vs Twice-Daily Dosing of LPV/RTV Tablets in Treatment-Naive Individuals Main Findings  Once-daily dosing of LPV/RTV determined to be noninferior to twice-daily dosing –Difference in response rates: 1% (95% CI: -5% to 8%) Gathe J, et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;50: Outcome at Week 48LPV/RTV QD (n = 333) LPV/RTV BID (n = 331) P Value HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL by ITT NC = F analysis, % HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL by observed analysis, % Mean increase in CD4+ cell count, cells/mm

clinicaloptions.com/hiv Once-Daily vs Twice-Daily Dosing of LPV/RTV Tablets in Treatment-Naive Individuals Main Findings  Proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL comparable between arms across subgroups defined by baseline HIV-1 RNA (< or ≥ 100,000 copies/mL) and baseline CD4+ cell count (< 50, , and ≥ 200 cells/mm 3 )  Comparison of tablets vs SGC formulation after 8 weeks of treatment identified no statistically significant differences in the following –Proportion of patients discontinuing treatment due to gastrointestinal or other adverse events –Incidence of treatment-emergent diarrhea of any and all levels of severity –Proportion of patients with grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities –Mean change in total cholesterol or triglycerides Gathe J, et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;50:

clinicaloptions.com/hiv Once-Daily vs Twice-Daily Dosing of LPV/RTV Tablets in Treatment-Naive Individuals Main Findings  Adverse events and laboratory abnormalities comparable between once-daily and twice-daily dosing groups through Week 48, except for significantly higher proportion of patients with grade 2 hypertriglyceridemia in twice-daily group Gathe J, et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;50: Adverse Events/Laboratory Abnormalities Occurring in ≥ 2% of Patients in Either Group Through Week 48,% LPV/RTV QD (n = 333) LPV/RTV BID (n = 331) P Value Grade 2 laboratory abnormalities  Cholesterol (> 239 mg/d L [> 619 m mol/L])21 <.999  Triglycerides (> 399 mg/dL [> 4.51 m mol/L]) Moderate/severe adverse events  Diarrhea  Nausea  Vomiting  Hypertriglyceridemia*22.801

clinicaloptions.com/hiv Once-Daily vs Twice-Daily Dosing of LPV/RTV Tablets in Treatment-Naive Individuals Main Findings  Mean lipid changes greater for twice-daily dosing group, difference only statistically significant for total cholesterol Crum-Cianflone N, et al. AIDS. 2009;23: *P <.044 LPV/RTV QD LPV/RTV BID Total Cholesterol LDL HDLTriglycerides 30 * Mean Change From Baseline to Week 48 (mg/dL) 70

clinicaloptions.com/hiv Once-Daily vs Twice-Daily Dosing of LPV/RTV Tablets in Treatment-Naive Individuals Other Outcomes  Patient disposition during study comparable between once-daily and twice- daily dosing groups –Study discontinuation: 14.7% vs 16.6%, respectively –Discontinuation due to adverse events: 4.8% vs 3%, respectively  Resistance testing conducted on 17 patients with virologic rebound (10 in once-daily group, 7 in twice-daily group) –No PI or TDF resistance mutations identified –3 patients developed M184V mutation  Survey assessing satisfaction with therapy found that 75% to 80% of patients who switched from SGCs to tablets preferred the tablets –Preference for tablets reflected by significant improvements in ease of use (P =.001 for once-daily group; P =.002 for twice-daily group) and patient satisfaction (P <.001 for once-daily group; P =.061 for twice-daily group) following switch from SGCs to tablets Gathe J, et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;50:

clinicaloptions.com/hiv Once-Daily vs Twice-Daily Dosing of LPV/RTV Tablets in Treatment-Naive Individuals Summary of Key Conclusions  Once-daily dosing of LPV/RTV tablets noninferior to twice-daily dosing regarding virologic suppression at 48 weeks when combined with TDF/FTC in treatment-naive individuals  Efficacy comparable between once-daily and twice-daily dosing groups regardless of baseline HIV-1 RNA or CD4+ cell count  Safety and tolerability also comparable between once-daily and twice- daily dosing groups –Similar incidence of diarrhea –Increases in total cholesterol significantly higher in patients given twice- daily LPV/RTV  No new PI resistance mutations identified in any patients with virologic rebound Crum-Cianflone N, et al. AIDS. 2009;23:41-50.