Phase 2 of new ARVs TAF (TFV prodrug) - Study 292-0102 - Study 299-0102.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Switch to ATV + r-containing regimen - SWAN - SLOAT.
Advertisements

Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257.
N ORTHWEST A IDS E DUCATION AND T RAINING C ENTER CROI 2015: Treatment and Cure Highlights Shireesha Dhanireddy Robert Harrington March 17, 2014 No financial.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
Phase 2 of new ARVs TAF (TFV prodrug) - Study Study
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.
Comparison of NRTI combinations  ZDV/3TC vs TDF + FTC –Study 934  ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC –HEAT Study –ACTG A5202 Study –ASSERT Study  Comparison of 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.
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:
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES.
Switch to RAL-containing regimen  Canadian Study  CHEER  Montreal Study  EASIER  SWITCHMRK  SPIRAL  Switch ER.
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 NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
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 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.
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES.
Phase 2 of new ARVs  Fostemsavir, prodrug of temsavir (attachment inhibitor) –AI Study  TAF (TFV prodrug) –Study –Study  Doravirine.
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.
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.
Switch from TDF to TAF  GS-US Study.  Design  Endpoints –Primary: proportion of patients maintaining HIV RNA < 50 c/mL at W48 (ITT, snapshot)
Switch from TDF to TAF GS-US Study GS-US Study
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
ARV-trial.com Switch from TDF to TAF GS-US Study 1.
ARV-trial.com Switch to RPV/FTC/TAF Studies 1216 and
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
ARV-trial.com Switch to ATV/r + 3TC ATLAS-M Study.
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
ARV-trial.com Switch to D/C/F/TAF EMERALD Study 1.
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
Switch from TDF to TAF GS-US Study GS-US Study
Switch ABC/3TC to TAF/FTC
ARV-trial.com Switch to E/C/F/TAF GS-US Study 1.
Switch from TDF to TAF GS-US Study GS-US Study
Switch to DTG-containing regimen
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Switch to E/C/F/TAF + DRV
Switch to D/C/F/TAF EMERALD Study.
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of INSTI – Phase 2
ARV-trial.com Switch to DRV/r + RPV PROBE Study 1.
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
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
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
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
Presentation transcript:

Phase 2 of new ARVs TAF (TFV prodrug) - Study Study

Sax PE. JAIDS 2014;67: /TAF phase 2  Design  Primary objective –Determine virologic efficacy of EVG/c/FTC/TAF –150 patients provide 76% power to detect a 1.5% (SD of 3.3%) difference in hip bone mineral density in the EVG/c/FTC/TAF arm relative to the EVG/c/FTC/TDF arm EVG/c/FTC/TAF 150/150/200/10 mg QD STR EVG/c/FTC/TDF placebo EVG/c/FTC/TDF 150/150/200/300 mg QD STR EVG/c/FTC/TAF placebo Randomisation* 2 : 1 Double-blind > 18 years ARV-naïve HIV RNA > 5,000 c/mL CD4 cell count > 50/mm 3 eGFR > 70 mL/min *Randomisation was stratified by HIV RNA ( 100,000 c/mL) at screening Study : EVG/c/FTC/TAF QD vs EVG/c/FTC/TDF QD (Phase 2) N =58 N = 112 W24W48

 Baseline characteristics –Median viral load at baseline : 4.6 log 10 c/mL (21% > 100,000 c/mL), median CD4+ cell count : 391 cells/mm 3 (15% > 200/mm 3 )  Main results –Discontinuation due to adverse events by W48 : 4 in TAF arm vs 0 in TDF arm –HIV RNA < 50 c/mL at W24 : 87.5% E/c/F/TAF vs 89.7% E/c/F/TDF –3 patients in each arm met criteria for resistance testing (virologic failure [2 consecutive HIV RNA > 50 c/mL] with HIV RNA > 400 c/mL). Genotype was performed on confirmatory sample E/c/F/TAF : no resistance detected E/c/F/TDF : 2 patients developed resistance, 1 to NRTI, 1 to INSTI + NRTI –PK substudy : plasma TFV exposure was 91% lower with E/c/F/TAF than with E/c/F/TDF, as measured by AUC tau. Conversely, intracellular TFV-DP levels in PBMCs were 5.3-fold higher with E/c/F/TAF Sax PE. JAIDS 2014;67: /TAF phase 2 Study : EVG/c/FTC/TAF QD vs EVG/c/FTC/TDF QD (Phase 2)

 Safety –Significantly less change in the E/c/F/TAF arm in BMD at hip (-0.62% vs -2.39%, p < 0.001) and lumbar spine (-1.0% vs -3.37%, p < 0.001) at W48, which were also significant at week 24 –In the E/c/F/TAF arm, 32% of patients had no decrease in hip BMD vs 7% in the E/c/F/TDF arm (p < 0.001) –Median change in eGFR by Cockcroft–Gault = -5.5 mL/min for E/c/F/TAF vs mL/min for E/c/F/TDF (p = 0.041) –Renal tubular proteinuria [urine retinol-binding protein/creatinine ratio and urine  -2 microglobulin/creatinine ratio] was significantly lower in patients who received E/c/F/TAF : no cases of proximal tubulopathy –Grade 3-4 adverse events : 9.8% TAF vs 5.2% TDF –Most common treatment-emergent adverse events : nausea (21% vs 12%), diarrhea (16% in each arm) –Higher elevations in lipids with TAF Sax PE. JAIDS 2014;67: /TAF phase 2 Study : EVG/c/FTC/TAF QD vs EVG/c/FTC/TDF QD (Phase 2)

E/C/F/TAFE/C/F/TDF Any25%17% LDL-cholesterol9%3% Creatine phosphokinase6%3% Neutropenia5%2% Amylase3% Urine red blood cells2%0 Total cholesterol2%0 ALT / AST1% / 1%2% / 0 Gamma glutamyl transferase1%2% White blood cells1%0 Hypophosphatemia1%0 Urine protein1%0 Glucose1%2% Triglycerides1%2%  Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities Sax PE. JAIDS 2014;67: /TAF phase 2 Study : EVG/c/FTC/TAF QD vs EVG/c/FTC/TDF QD (Phase 2)

 Summary of week 48 results –In this phase 2, randomised clinical trial, HIV-positive treatment-naive adults received STRs of E/c/F/TAF or E/c/F/TDF. Both STRs demonstrated high and comparable rates of virologic suppression through 48 weeks of therapy –Both regimens were well tolerated, with few discontinuations due to adverse events. Nausea occurred more frequently with E/c/F/TAF –Plasma concentrations of TFV were substantially (91%) lower with E/c/F/TAF than with E/c/ F/TDF, and the TAF regimen delivered 5.3 times the intracellular, physiologically active metabolite, TFV-DP, to PBMCs, which could translate into less end-organ toxicity and/or improved virologic control –Significant smaller decreases in bone mineral density through 48 with E/c/F/TAF than with E/c/F/TDF –Urinary RBP/creatinine and  -2 microglobulin/creatinine ratios were significantly lower in the E/c/F/TAF arm, which suggests that TAF has a lesser effect than TDF on the proximal renal tubular cell Sax PE. JAIDS 2014;67: /TAF phase 2 Study : EVG/c/FTC/TAF QD vs EVG/c/FTC/TDF QD (Phase 2)