NRTI-sparing  SPARTAN  PROGRESS  RADAR  NEAT001/ANRS 143  A4001078  VEMAN  MODERN.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257.
Advertisements

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.
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089  LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TC MONARK  LPV/r QD vs BID M M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2.
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.
Switch to ATV/r + 3TC  SALT Study. ATV/r 300/100 mg qd + 2 NRTI (investigator-selected) N = 143 ATV/r 300/100 mg + 3TC 300 mg qd  Design Randomisation*
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:
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES.
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES.
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.
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy  ATARITMO  Swedish Study  ACTG A5201  OREY  MODAt Study.
Switch to ATV-containing regimen  ARIES Study  INDUMA Study  ASSURE Study.
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.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
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 INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES.
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.
NRTI-sparing  SPARTAN  PROGRESS  NEAT001/ANRS 143  MODERN.
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.
Comparison of EFV vs MVC  MERIT Study.  Design N = 361 N = 360  Objective –Non inferiority of MVC vs EFV: % HIV RNA < 400 c/mL and < 50 c/mL (co-primary.
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 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.
NRTI-sparing  SPARTAN  PROGRESS  NEAT001/ANRS 143  MODERN.
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 INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257.
Switch to low dose ATV/r  LASA Study.  Design  Endpoints –Primary: proportion of patients with HIV RNA < 200 c/mL at W48 (ITT-E) ; non-inferiority.
Switch to DTG/ABC/3TC  STRIIVING Study.  Design  Endpoints –Primary: proportion of patients maintaining HIV RNA < 50 c/mL at W48 (ITT-E, snapshot)
Switch to PI/r monotherapy
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
Comparison of INSTI vs PI
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Switch to PI/r + 3TC vs PI/r monotherapy
ARV-trial.com Switch to ATV/r + 3TC ATLAS-M Study.
Switch to DTG + 3TC ASPIRE Study.
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of EFV vs MVC
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Comparison of NRTI combinations
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
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
ARV-trial.com Switch to ATV/r + RAL HARNESS Study 1.
ARV-trial.com Switch to DTG/ABC/3TC STRIIVING NEAT
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
DTG + 3TC vs DTG + TDF/FTC GEMINI.
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Presentation transcript:

NRTI-sparing  SPARTAN  PROGRESS  RADAR  NEAT001/ANRS 143  A  VEMAN  MODERN

A Study: ATV/r + MVC vs ATV/r + TDF/FTC  Design ≥ 16 years HIV+ Antiretroviral naive HIV-1 RNA ≥ c/mL CD4 ≥ 100/mm 3 CCR5-tropic (Trofile®) No resistance to TDF, FTC or ATV HBV co-infection excluded ≥ 16 years HIV+ Antiretroviral naive HIV-1 RNA ≥ c/mL CD4 ≥ 100/mm 3 CCR5-tropic (Trofile®) No resistance to TDF, FTC or ATV HBV co-infection excluded ATV/r 300/100 qd + MVC 150 qd ATV/r + TDF/FTC 118 N = 60 N = 61 Randomisation 1 : 1 Open-label W96  Objective Primary endpoint: % with HIV RNA < 50 c/mL at W48 (ITT, missing, discontinued = failure), not powered to show a difference Protocol-defined treatment failure: c/mL on 2 consecutive measurements ≤ 14 days apart in patients having achieved levels < 400 c/mL on 2 consecutive visits Mills A. JAIDS 2013;62: A

ATV/r + MVC N = 60 ATV/r + TDF/FTC N = 61 Age, years3835 Female, %715 CD4/mm HIV RNA, log 10 copies/mL Discontinuation by W48, n For adverse event For lack of efficacy Switch from ATV/r due to jaundice, n Switch to DRV/r Switch to LPV/r Baseline characteristics (mean), and disposition A Study: ATV/r + MVC vs ATV/r + TDF/FTC Mills A. JAIDS 2013;62: A

Median change from baseline in CD4 cell count/mm 3 at W48: for MVC vs for TDF/FTC HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL at W48, ITT, missing/discontinuation = failure Mills A. JAIDS 2013;62: A A Study: ATV/r + MVC vs ATV/r + TDF/FTC  Genotype analysis : 3 patients in each group with HIV RNA ≥ 500 c/mL at time of discontinuation : –no resistance to any component –no change in tropism in MVC group ATV/r + MVC ATV/r + TDF/FTC < 100,000 copies/mL N= 43 > 100,000 copies/mL Baseline HIV-1 RNA %

ATV/r + MVC N = 60 ATV/r + TDF/FTC N = 61 Discontinuation due to adverse event, n 2 Vomiting, jaundice 0 Adverse event in ≥ 10% of patients, % Hyperbilirubinemia Diarrhea Upper respiratory tract infection Nausea Vomiting Headache Grade 3-4 adverse event, % Serious adverse event, % attributed to ATV 16.7 N = 1 (nephrolithiasis) Hyperbilirubinemia grade 3 / grade 4, %50.8 / / 4.9 ALAT grade 3-4 / ASAT grade 3-4, %5.1 / / 3.2 Change from baseline in mean creatinine clearance (Cockroft-Gault formula), mL/min Safety at W48 Mills A. JAIDS 2013;62: A A Study: ATV/r + MVC vs ATV/r + TDF/FTC

 Conclusion –This open-label study in treatment-naive patients with CCR5-tropic virus showed that a high proportion of patients in the MVC and TDF/FTC treatment groups achieved and maintained viral suppression through 48 weeks of treatment Low potential for resistance or loss of susceptibility to study drugs at treatment failure –When stratified by plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration at baseline, the number of patients who achieved plasma HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL at W48 was higher in the TDF/FTC + ATV/r treatment arm compared with the MVC + ATV/r group –CD4 cell counts increased from baseline in both treatment groups –The frequency of treatment-limiting hyperbilirubinemia was greater than expected –Limitations Unpowered to establish non-inferiority Mills A. JAIDS 2013;62: A