Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS-236-0103  ACTG A5257  WAVES.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
Advertisements

Switch to ATV + r-containing regimen - SWAN - SLOAT.
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257.
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI  QDMRK  SPRING-2. Raffi F. Lancet 2013;381:  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of DTG at W48: % HIV RNA < 50 c/mL.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
Phase 2 of new ARVs TAF (TFV prodrug) - Study Study
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/3TC MONARK  LPV/r QD vs BID M M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2.
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.
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257.
Switch from TDF to TAF GS-US Study GS-US Study
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
Comparison of INSTI vs PI
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 ABC/3TC to TAF/FTC
Switch from TDF to TAF GS-US Study GS-US Study
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Switch to D/C/F/TAF EMERALD Study.
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of NRTI combinations
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
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
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
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Comparison of INSTI vs PI
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NRTI combinations
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Presentation transcript:

Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES

Squires K. IAS 2015 Vancouver, Abs. MOLBPE08  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of EVG/C/FTC/TDF at W48: % HIV RNA < 50 c/mL by intention to treat, snapshot analysis (lower margin of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference = -12%) EVG/C/FTC/TDF 150/150/200/300 mg QD ATV + r + TDF/FTC placebo ATV + r 300/100 mg + FTC/TDF QD EVG/C/FTC/TDF placebo Randomisation* 1 : 1 Double-blind Women ARV-naïve HIV RNA > 500 c/mL Any CD4 cell count Sensitivity to FTC, TDF and ATV eGFR > 70 mL/min *Randomisation was stratified by HIV RNA ( 400,000 c/mL) at screening and race (black or non-black) Study WAVES: EVG/C/FTC/TDF QD vs ATV + r + FTC/TDF QD in Women N = 286 N = 289 W48 WAVES Open-label extension

EVG/C/FTC/TDF N = 289 ATV + r + FTC/TDF N = 286 Female100% Median age, years3435 White / Black / Asian44% / 49% / 3%42% / 47% / 6% AIDS4%5% HIV RNA (log 10 c/mL), median (Q1-Q3)4.46 ( )4.56 ( ) HIV RNA 100, ,000 c/mL HIV RNA ≥ 400,000 c/mL 15% 9% 17% 8% CD4 cell count (/mm 3 ), median CD4 < 200 per mm 3 17%18% Hepatitis B / hepatitis C coinfection3% / 8%2% / 9% Discontinuation by W48, N (%)29 (10%)45 (16%) For lack of efficacyN = 0N = 1 For adverse eventN = 5N = 19 Lost to follow-up / Withdrew consentN = 12 / N = 6N = 12 / N = 5 Non-compliance / OtherN = 4 / N = 2N = 5 / N = 3 Baseline characteristics and patient disposition Squires K. IAS 2015 Vancouver, Abs. MOLBPE08 Study WAVES: EVG/C/FTC/TDF QD vs ATV + r + FTC/TDF QD in Women WAVES

Response to treatment at week 48 Mean CD4/mm 3 increase at W48 : (EVG/C/FTC/TDF) vs (ATV + r + FTC/TDF) EVG/C/FTC/TDF (N = 289) ATV + r + FTC/TDF (N = 286) HIV RNA < 50 c/mL (ITT, snapshot) Adjusted difference (95% CI) = 6.5 % (0.4 ; 12.6) p = Virologic successVirologic failure % No virologic data Squires K. IAS 2015 Vancouver, Abs. MOLBPE08 Study WAVES: EVG/C/FTC/TDF QD vs ATV + r + FTC/TDF QD in Women WAVES

HIV RNA < 50 c/mL at W48 by baseline HIV RNA and CD4 count EVG/C/FTC/TDF ATV + r + FTC/TDF % Overall< 100, < 350> > 100,000 HIV RNA (copies/mL)CD4 cell count (/mm 3 ) Squires K. IAS 2015 Vancouver, Abs. MOLBPE08 Study WAVES: EVG/C/FTC/TDF QD vs ATV + r + FTC/TDF QD in Women WAVES

Emergence of resistance EVG/C/FTC/TDFATV + r + FTC/TDF Resistance analysis population1921 Final RAP*712 Resistance mutations emergence03 NRTI-resistance13 D67D/N10 M184V/I03 K65R00 INSTI-resistance00 Primary PI-resistance00 * Criteria : -Suboptimal response (HIV RNA ≥ 50 c/mL and < 1 log 10 reduction from baseline by W8, confirmed) -Virologic rebound (> 400 c/mL after achieving HIV RNA 1 log 10 increase from nadir) -HIV RNA > 400 c/mL at W48 Exclusion of patients with HIV RNA < 50 c/mL at subsequent visits Squires K. IAS 2015 Vancouver, Abs. MOLBPE08 Study WAVES: EVG/C/FTC/TDF QD vs ATV + r + FTC/TDF QD in Women WAVES

EVG/C/FTC/TDFATV + r + FTC/TDFp DXA assessment at baseline, spine ; hip, N at W48, spine ; hip, N 138 ; ; ;128 Median change from baseline in BMD Lumbar spine % %0.69 Hip % %0.37 Median change from baseline in eGFR (mL/min), Cockroft-Gault formula Renal and bone mineral density (DXA) assessments EVG/C/FTC/TDFATV + r + FTC/TDFp Total cholesterol Other lipid parameters (LDL-c, HDL-c, Triglycerides, Total cholesterol:HDL-cholesterol rations Median change from baseline in fasting lipids (mg/dL) Squires K. IAS 2015 Vancouver, Abs. MOLBPE08 Study WAVES: EVG/C/FTC/TDF QD vs ATV + r + FTC/TDF QD in Women WAVES

EVG/C/FTC/TDFATV + r + FTC/TDF Adverse events leading to discontinuation, N Hepatobiliary disorder14 Gastro-intestinal disorder34 Pulmonary tuberculosis10 Renal02 Skin disorder29 Drug hypersensitivity01 Adverse event in ≥ 10% of patients, %0 Headache1615 Upper respiratory tract infection1615 Nausea1514 Vomiting1014 Jaundice / Icterus< 1 / < 111 / 12 Grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities in ≥ 2%, % Serum amylase elevation22 Neutropenia < 1000/mm 3 23 ALT elevation22 Hyperbilirubinemia< 146 Glycosuria02 Adverse events and Grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities Squires K. IAS 2015 Vancouver, Abs. MOLBPE08 Study WAVES: EVG/C/FTC/TDF QD vs ATV + r + FTC/TDF QD in Women WAVES

 Summary –EVG/C/FTC/TDF QD was virologically non inferior and superior to ATV + r + FTC/TDF –Similar virologic response of the 2 regimens in different subgroups of patients, including those with high HIV RNA or CD4 < 350/mm 3 at enrolment –Development of major resistance mutations occurred in No patients on EVG/C/FTC/TDF 3 patients on ATV + r + /FTC/TDF: NRTI mutations, no PI mutations –Discontinuation because of adverse events was lower with EVG/C/FTC/TDF –Less incidence of icterus and hyperbilirubinemia with EVG/C/FTC/TDF ̶ Comparable changes in fasting lipids in both groups, except for total cholesterol which elevation was higher with EVG/C/FTC/TDF –Median decreases in estimated glomerular filtration rate and in spine and hip BMD were modest and not different between the 2 groups Squires K. IAS 2015 Vancouver, Abs. MOLBPE08 Study WAVES: EVG/C/FTC/TDF QD vs ATV + r + FTC/TDF QD in Women WAVES