Response Rates in Heavily Pretreated HIV+ Patients Roy M. Gulick, MD, MPH Cornell Clinical Trials Unit.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Slide #1 HIV Entry Inhibitors Trip Gulick, MD, MPH Director, Cornell HIV Clinical Trials Unit Associate Professor of Medicine Weill Medical College of.
Advertisements

Indinavir/Ritonavir 800/200 mg bid based regimen in multi-experienced HIV positive patients with extensive drug resistance. A.Vincenti1, L. Vatteroni2,
Objective of the DAP A) Specify an analysis plan that can be applied to a wide variety of clinical HIV resistance studies. B) Include both Intervention.
Cohen_MDS218_final1 Second Regimens: Issues in Improving Success Calvin Cohen, MD, MS Clinical Instructor Harvard Medical School Research Director Community.
ACTG 333 The Antiviral Effect of Switching from Saquinavir to the New Formulation of Saquinavir vs. Switching to Indinavir After >1 year of Saquinavir.
Persisting long term benefit of genotypic guided treatment in HIV infected patients failing HAART and Importance of Protease Inhibitor plasma levels. Viradapt.
Global HIV Resistance: The Implications of Transmission
Failure Therapy VIRAL RESITANCE ADHERENCE!!!!!!!!!!! DRUG INTERACTION.
BHIVA Clinical Audit Management of patients who switch therapy; re-audit of patients starting therapy from naïve.
When to Initiate ART in Adults and Adolescents (2009 WHO Guidelines) Target PopulationClinical conditionRecommendation Asymptomatic Individuals (including.
1 Review of Antiretroviral Therapy in Adults HAIVN Harvard Medical School AIDS Initiative in Vietnam.
Switch NNRTI to NNRTI  Switch EFV to ETR –CNS toxicity study –Patient’s preference study.
EARLY CHILDHOOD OUTCOMES AT THE BOTSWANA- BAYLOR CHILDREN’S CLINICAL CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE: A REPORT TO THE WHO TECHNICAL REFERENCE GROUP ON PEDIATRIC CARE.
TO EVALUATE EARLY ANTIVIRAL RESPONSE AND SAFETY OF A DUAL BOOSTED PROTEASE INHIBITORS REGIMEN INCLUDING LOPINAVIR/r (LPV) PLUS AMPRENAVIR (AMP) OR FORTOVASE.
TITAN = TMC114/r In Treatment-experienced pAtients Naïve to lopinavir
Choice of Endpoints for Salvage Studies. Clinical Endpoints  AIDS-defining events  Survival  QOL  Marker-based Endpoints for Efficacy  HIV-1 RNA.
A prospective, randomized, Phase III trial of NRTI-, PI-, and NNRTI-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection – ACTG 5142 Riddler S.A.,
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy  MONOI  MONET  PROTEA  DRV600.
Efficacy and Safety of Maraviroc in Treatment- Experienced (TE) Patients Infected with R5 HIV-1: 96-week Combined Analysis of the MOTIVATE 1 & 2 Studies.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
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 LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
Switching ARVs in Virologically Suppressed Patients.
Maintenance therapy with Trizivir® after 6 months induction with Trizivir® plus either efavirenz or lopinavir/r in naïve patients. Trizefal study J. Mallolas*
Prevention and Care Dr S Charalambous WHO guidelines.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
Enfuvirtide for Drug-Resistant HIV Infection in North and South America Simon R. Bababeygy.
INTRODUCTION A previous cohort study from our unit suggested a benefit for the use of efavirenz compared to nevirapine in a group of patients initiating.
Potential Utility of Tipranavir in Current Clinical Practice Daniel R. Kuritzkes, MD Director of AIDS Research Brigham and Woman’s Hospital Division of.
Clinical development programme for Second-Line treatment Anton Pozniak World AIDS Conference, July 2014.
Management of NRTI Resistance
Treatment Failure HAIVN Harvard Medical School AIDS Initiative in Vietnam.
Design of the RESIST Study Program Dr Kevin Curry Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK.
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.
Novel Antiretroviral Studies and Strategies
Switch to PI/r monotherapy
Rilpivirine-TDF-FTC versus Efavirenz-TDF-FTC STaR Trial
EFV versus ATV + RTV, both with ABC-3TC or TDF-FTC ACTG 5202
Dolutegravir plus Rilpivirine as Maintenance Dual Therapy SWORD-1 and SWORD- 2: Design
Switch to PI/r + 3TC vs PI/r monotherapy
Etravirine in Treatment Experienced DUET-2 (TMC125-C216)
Switch to RPV-TDF-FTC from Ritonavir-boosted PI Regimen SPIRIT STUDY
Lopinavir-ritonavir mg BID (n = 354)
Etravirine versus Protease Inhibitor in ARV-Experienced TMC 125-C227
Etravirine in Treatment Experienced DUET-1 (TMC125-C206)
Atazanavir + ritonavir vs. Lopinavir-ritonavir CASTLE Study
Darunavir/r versus Other PIs in Treatment Experienced POWER 1 and 2
Switching to TDF-FTC from ABC-3TC for Hyperlipidemia ROCKET II
LPV-RTV versus LPV-RTV + ZDV-3TC in Treatment-Naïve MONARK Trial
St Stephen’s Centre, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, United Kingdom
Long-Term Clinical and Immunologic Outcomes Are Similar in HIV-Infected Persons Randomized to NNRTI versus PI versus NNRTI+PI-based Antiretroviral Regimens.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
A prospective, randomized, Phase III trial of NRTI-, PI-, and NNRTI-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection – ACTG 5142 Riddler S.A.,
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
ARV-trial.com Switch to ATV/r + RAL HARNESS Study 1.
ARV-trial.com Switch to FTC + ddI + EFV ALIZE 1.
Presentation transcript:

Response Rates in Heavily Pretreated HIV+ Patients Roy M. Gulick, MD, MPH Cornell Clinical Trials Unit

Clinical Cohort Studies: Virologic Failure Rates CohortN(% above LD, time) Amsterdam (Wit JID 99) 27140%, 48 wks Cleveland (Valdez Arch IM 99) 31053%, 1 yr Hopkins (Lucas Ann IM 99) 27363%, 1 yr Swiss (Ledergerber Lancet 99) %, 2 yrs UCSF (Deeks AIDS 99)33750%, 48 wks

Clinical Cohort Studies: Predictors of Virologic Failure prior antiretroviral treatment higher baseline/peak viral load level lower baseline/nadir CD 4 cell count specific antiretroviral regimen used more missed clinic appointments

Baxter, et al., AIDS No. of active drugs Change (log) % of patients HIV RNA changes (log) GART n=78 No GART n=75   GART: HIV RNA Changes by Number of Active Drugs

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: VIRADAPT Time, mo HIV RNA, log decrease Control = Standard of care. Source: Garraffo. Antiviral Ther; 1999;4(1):75. HIV RNA Decreases in PI-Treated Patients SOC SOC + GT OC OC + GT S/OC = suboptimal/optimal drug concentration GT = genotypic testing done

Clinical Cohort Studies: Limitations Heterogeneous patient populations (e.g., prior antiretroviral experience) Reflects antiretroviral rx use in –Fewer antiretrovirals available –More complex regimens –Sequential monotherapy ?virologic = immunologic = clinical failure

Deeks, et al, J Infect Dis 2000 UCSF Cohort (N=380): Virologic +Immunologic Responses

Grabar, et al, Ann Intern Med 2000 French Cohort (N=2236): Viro., Immun. + Clinical Responses IR+/VR+ IR-/VR- IR-/VR+ IR+/VR Months since introduction of PI Percent alive and AIDS-free

Mocroft, et al. 3rd Salvage Workshop, 2000 Treatment Failure at 2 years: EuroSIDA Cohort (N=8507) Regimen Cohort Virologic failure (VL >500) Immune + clinical failure Clinical events 1 st HAART40%20%5% 2 nd HAART50%30%24% 3 rd HAART67%40%25%

Prospective Studies of Salvage Rx: First Failures ACTG 333: SQV-experienced ACTG 372b: IDV-experienced ACTG 359: IDV-experienced ABT-765: Single PI-experienced

Para, et al. J Infect Dis 2000 ACTG 333: SQV-experienced Study population: >48 wks SQVhc, no other PI, stable antivirals X 2 mos (N=72) Baseline: HIV RNA 21K, CD4 222 Results (interim analysis at 8 wks): RxVL change % <200 cps/ml CD4 change SQVhcnone 9%none SQVsgc-0.2 logs10%+37 IDV-0.6 logs37%+22

Hammer, et al, 6th CROI, #490. ACTG 372b: IDV-experienced Population: HIV+, on AZT or d4T + 3TC + IDV with VL >500 cps/ml (N = 84) Duration: 48 weeks Rx: EFV + ADV + ABC (or new NRTI) +/- NFV Results: Overall, 29 (35%) had HIV RNA <500 copies/ml at week 16 Factorial analyses: –ABC (37%) vs. 1-2 new NRTI’s (32%) (p=0.62) –NFV (45%) vs. placebo (24%) favored nelfinavir group (p=0.046)

Gulick, et al, J Infect Dis 2000 ACTG 359: IDV-experienced Population: HIV+, > 6 mo prior IDV, HIV RNA K, naïve to other PI and NNRTI, (N = 277) Baseline: VL 32K, CD4 229 Rx: SQVsgc + RTV or NFV + DLV, ADV, or both Overall, 77 (30%) had HIV RNA <500 copies/ml at week 16 Factorial analyses: –SQV/RTV (28%) vs. SQV/NFV (33%) (p=0.50) –DLV (40%) vs. ADV (18%) vs. both (33%) favored DLV-containing regimens (p=0.006)

Feinberg, et al. Glasgow Meeting, 2000 Abbott M97-765: PI-experienced Study population: HIV+, single PI failure, NNRTI naïve, HIV RNA 1-100K (N=70) Baseline: VL 4.1 logs, CD4 372 Study treatment: lopinavir 400 mg bid + ritonavir 100 or 200 mg bid + NVP + nucs X 96 weeks Preliminary results: 4 d/c for rx-related effects (3 GI, 1 rash)

log 10 copies/mL Week M97-765: HIV RNA Mean Change from Baseline At Week 2, NRTIs were switched and NVP added At Baseline, PI was switched to lopinavir/r

Percent Week M97-765: HIV RNA <400 copies/mL (ITT M=F) Sample Size 400/100 mg36 400/200 mg34 65% 61%

Rockstroh, Glasgow Meeting, 2000 Abbott M97-957: >2 PI-experienced Study population: HIV+, >2 PI failure, NNRTI naïve, HIV RNA >1000 (N=57) Baseline: VL ~4.5 logs, CD4 ~245 Study treatment: lopinavir 400 or 533 mg bid + ritonavir 100 or 133 mg bid + EFV + nucs X 48 weeks Preliminary results: 3 d/c for rx-related effects (2 CNS sx, 1 lactic acidosis)

Percentage of patients 71%59% Week: 400/100mg n = /133mg n = 28 M98-957: Proportion <400 copies/mL (ITT M=F) 400/100mg BID 533/133mg BID

Heavily Pretreated Patients: A Definition Patients with: –a loss/lack of virologic response to at least 2 HAART regimens – have taken at least one member of each of the approved antiretroviral drug classes (NRTI, NNRTI, PI)

Mocroft, et al. 3rd Salvage Workshop 2000 Heavily Pretreated Patients: EuroSIDA Cohort (1) 266 pts had 3-class experience; had taken >2 HAART regimens and started new salvage rx: –40% decreased VL <1000, and 30% maintained this decrease at 6 months –55% had >1 log decrease and 45% maintained this decrease at 6 months (55-70% virologic failure at 6 months) –55% decreased CD4 below baseline (imm.failure at 1 year) –5% had a new AIDS event/death (clinical failure at 1 year)

Mocroft, et al. 3rd Salvage Workshop 2000 Heavily Pretreated Patients: EuroSIDA Cohort (2) Predictors of virologic response: –Prior VL <500 cps/ml –Less prior rx (28% decline in probability/year rx) –Higher latest CD4 count –Central Europe resident Predictors of immunologic/clinical response: –Female –Lower latest VL –Fewer prior antiretrovirals

Eron, et al, AIDS 1998, #OP5.2 CNAA 2007: PI-experienced Population: HIV+, >20 weeks combination therapy with a PI; HIV RNA >500 cps/ml (N=99) Baseline experience: 72% 4-5 NRTI, 44% NNRTI; 60% 3-4 PI Duration: 48 weeks Treatment: open label ABC + EFV + APV Primary endpoint: safety/tolerability, antiviral activity at 16 weeks

Eron, et al, AIDS 1998, #OP5.2 CNAA 2007: PI-experienced Results Overall, 19 (26%) had HIV RNA <400 copies/ml at week 16 Subgroup analyses: –NNRTI naïve, VL <40K (53%) –NNRTI naïve, VL >40K (23%) –NNTRI experienced, VL <40K (33%) –NNRTI experienced, VL >40K (7%)

Hammer, et al, 7th CROI, #LB7 ACTG 398: PI-experienced Population: HIV+, >4 months of up to 3 prior PI; HIV RNA >1000; prior NNRTI OK; (N=481) Duration: 72+ weeks Treatment: –open label APV + ABC + EFV + ADV with SQV sgc 1600 mg bid IDV 1200 mg bid NFV 1250 mg bid or matching placebo (for 2nd PI) Primary endpoint: safety/antiviral activity/24 wks

Hammer, et al, 7th CROI, #LB7 ACTG 398: PI-experienced Results Overall, 149 (31%) had HIV RNA <200 copies/ml at week 24 Subgroup analyses: –NNRTI-naïve (43%) vs. experienced (16%) favors naïve subjects (p<0.001) –1 PI exp (37%) vs. >2 PI exp (29%) no difference (p=0.16) –Dual PI rx (35%) vs. APV alone rx (23%) favors dual PI rx (p=0.002)

Raffi, et al., Glasgow Meeting 2000 New Drug in Experienced Pts: DAPD (nucleoside analog) DAPD-101 Study Study population: Failed prior ZDV or d4T + 3TC; VL 5-250K cps/ml, CD4 >50 (N=24) Baseline: VL 5 logs, CD4 ~350 Prior treatment experience: –average number of antivirals – 6 –average prior length of rx -- 4 years –100% NRTI, >60% NNRTI, >80% PI Rx: DAPD at 200, 300, 500 mg bid; 3 groups washed out X 7d, 1 group added on X 15 days

DAPD-101: Median Change in HIV-1 RNA Treatment Experienced Cohorts Study Day DAPD BID TREATMENT WASHOUT HIV-1 RNA Median Change from BL 200 mg BID 300 mg BID 500 mg BID Add-On

Schooley, et al, Glasgow Meeting 2000 New Drug in Experienced Pts: Tenofovir (nucleotide analog) Gilead 902 Study Study population: On stable antiretroviral regimen with VL >5K (N=189) Baseline: VL 3.7 logs; CD4 ~350 Prior treatment experience: –average prior length of rx – 4.6 years –Baseline mutations: 97% NRTI, 32% NNRTI, 57% PI Rx: tenofovir at 75, 150, or 300 mg qd (or placebo) X 48 weeks

Tenofovir: Gilead 902 Study

Lalezari, et al, Durban AIDS Meeting 2000 New Drug in Experienced Pts: T-20 (fusion inhibitor) T Study Study population: Prior T-20 experience (N=71) Baseline: VL 4.8 logs, CD4 133 Prior treatment experience: –average number of antivirals – 10 –80% were three-drug class experienced Rx: T mg bid sq + other antiretrovirals chosen by hx and genotype X 48 wks Results: 14/71 (20%) had <0.5 log reduction; 23/70 (33%) had >1 log reduction or VL <400

n=71 n=66 n=64 n=50 n=46 T20-205: Phase I follow-up Viral Load Reduction -- Week 32 Viral Load Change from Baseline (log 10 copies / mL)

Salvage Therapy: Conclusions Virologic failure occurs commonly; immunologic and clinical failure also occur; all should be evaluated. Predictors of response include adherence, VL, CD4, resistance profile, number of active drugs, drug levels. Newer drugs with novel resistance patterns and/or mechanisms demonstrate activity, even in heavily pretreated patients. Novel study design may demonstrate activity AND provide benefit for the subjects. Further clinical research is needed.