Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 Stavudine Extended Release (Zerit ® XR; d4T XR) Stavudine Prolonged Release Capsules ATAC Meeting 2/24/02.

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.
Phase 2 of new ARVs BMS (maturation inhibitor)
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
Phase 2 of new ARVs BMS , prodrug of BMS (attachment inhibitor) - AI Study.
DART II Once Daily Regimen for Treatment-naïve HIV+ Patients with Stavudine XR + Lamivudine + Efavirenz 24 Week Interim Efficacy and Safety Results D aily.
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 DRV/r monotherapy  MONOI  MONET  PROTEA  DRV600.
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.
Phase 2 of new ARVs  Fostemsavir, prodrug of temsavir (attachment inhibitor) –AI Study  TAF (TFV prodrug) –Study –Study  Doravirine.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
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.
Clinical Aspects of Treatment with Tipranavir Dr Kevin Curry Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK.
Switch NNRTI to NNRTI  Switch EFV to ETR –CNS toxicity study –Patient’s preference study.
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.
1 Atazanavir (ATV) With Ritonavir (RTV) or Saquinavir (SQV) vs Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/RTV) in Patients With Multiple Virologic Failures 24-Week Results.
ALLY-2  Design  Objective –SVR 12 (HCV RNA < 25 IU/ml), with 95% CI, in treatment-naïve genotype 1 treated for 12 weeks DCV + SOF 400 mg QD DCV + SOF.
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy  MONOI  MONET  PROTEA  DRV600.
C-EDGE co-infection study: grazoprevir/ elbasvir in HIV coinfection GZR/EBR 100/50 mg qd N = 218  Design W12 W24 C-EDGE co-infection Rockstroh JK. Lancet.
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.
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.
PO 2726; IAS; Vicriviroc (formerly SCH ): Antiviral Activity of a Potent New CCR5 Receptor Antagonist D. Schuermann, C. Pechardscheck, R. Rouzier,
Clinical development programme for Second-Line treatment Anton Pozniak World AIDS Conference, July 2014.
 Treatment regimens –Co-formulated ombitasvir (OBV)/paritaprevir (PTV)/rironavir (r) : 25/150/100 mg QD = 2 tablets –Dasabuvir (DSV) : 250 mg BID –RBV.
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.
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.
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 NNRTI vs NNRTI
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Switch to E/C/F/TAF + DRV
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
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
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
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 PI
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
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
ARV-trial.com Switch to FTC + ddI + EFV ALIZE 1.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Presentation transcript:

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 Stavudine Extended Release (Zerit ® XR; d4T XR) Stavudine Prolonged Release Capsules ATAC Meeting 2/24/02

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 XR/PRC Formulation n Simplification of HAART regimen n Extended release formulation required to address short half-life of d4T n Formulation —d4T beads —Extended release coating —Coated beads packaged in capsule

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 XR/PRC Dose Selection n Provide equivalent AUC to 40 mg BID dose (30 mg BID if < 60 kg) n lower absorption from colon than from stomach/upper intestine (26% vs approx 100%) n XR/PRC releases drug over hrs n XR/PRC delivers drug in lower intestine

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 Stavudine (d4T) XR/PRC Exposure of XR vs IR: AI ParameterTrtGeometric MeanPoint Estimate (90% CI) C max [ng/mL] IR XR – (0.431, 0.555) AUC(24 h) [ng.h/mL] IR XR – (0.835, 0.925) Hour Plasma Concentration (ng/mL) IR-Fasting XR-Fasting

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 Stavudine XR/PRC: Summary of Clinical Pharmacology Studies n Total daily exposure (AUC) for 100 mg XR is equivalent to 40 mg BID IR, uncorrected for dose n C max is ~50% lower and C min is ~2-3 fold higher for XR vs IR n XR may be taken without regard to meals n Single-dose and steady-state kinetics of XR are similar (no accumulation) n d4T XR exhibits linear kinetics over mg

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 Stavudine XR/PRC Development n AI : Proof of Principle Study —N = 150 antiretroviral-naive adults n AI : Pivotal Study —N = 783 antiretroviral-naive adults n Both —Randomized, active-controlled for 48 weeks —d4T XR 100 mg QD + 3TC + EFV vs d4T IR 40 mg BID + 3TC + EFV n AI : Long-term follow-up —Open-label maintenance of 096/099 regimens —Safety monitoring and durability years 2 and 3

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 096/099 Study Design Group I d4T XR 100 mg QD d4T IR placebo 40 mg BID Group II d4T XR placebo 100 mg QD d4T IR 40 mg BID d4T XR 75 mg QD d4T IR placebo 30 mg BID d4T XR placebo 75 mg QD d4T IR 30 mg BID Patients  60 kg Patients <60 kg Screening Enrollment (stratified: HIV RNA <30,000 or  30,000) Randomization 1:1 All subjects received 3TC 150 mg BID + EFV 600 mg QD EFV  NFV allowed in cases of EFV intolerance

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 Key Inclusion Criteria: 096/099 n ART naive —  7/<30 days of NRTI, NNRTI, or PI therapy —No ART during the 14 days prior to randomization n HIV RNA  5000 (096);  2000 (099) n CD4  100 —  75 for patients with no prior AIDS-defining event n Lab values 14 days prior to initiating therapy —Serum creatinine  1.5 x ULN —Total serum lipase  1.4 x ULN —AST/ALT <3 x ULN

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 Baseline Characteristics 096* Age, median, years 3434 Gender, n (%) Male 54 (73)58 (76) Female 20 (27)18 (24) Race, n (%) White55 (74)50 (66) Black14 (19)14 (18) Hispanic/Latino5 (7)10 (13) American/Alaskan Native–1 (1) Asian/Pacific Islander – 1 (1) Region, n (%) North America50 (68)56 (74) South America24 (32)20 (26) *No differences between treatment groups were observed d4T XR (n = 74)d4T IR (n = 76)

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 Baseline Characteristics 096 HIV RNA, log 10 copies/mL Median Range2.3–5.92.9–5.9 CD4, cells/  L Median Range75–95363–962 d4T XR n = 74 d4T IR n = 76 P-value

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 Patient Disposition 096 Randomized75 (100)80 (100) Never treated1 (1)4 (5) Treated74 (99)76 (95) Premature D/C prior to wk 487 (9)14 (18) Disease progression2 (3)2 (3) Subject withdrew2 (3)1 (1) Adverse event1 (1)5 (6) Nonadherence1 (1)4 (5) Lost to follow-up1 (1)2 (3) Total treated patients completing wk 4867 (91)62 (82) d4T XR n = 75 d4T IR n = 80 Patients, n (%)

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 096: HIV RNA Mean Change (±SE) From Baseline –3.5 BL Log  HIV RNA Week d4T XR: d4T IR: –2.64 –3.0 –2.5 –2.0 –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 –0.0 –2.74 d4T XR (n = 74) d4T IR (n = 76) On Treatment

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 096: Patients With HIV RNA <LOQ ITT: NC=F (Treated Subjects) BL Patients (%) Week %<50 %<400 78% 67% 50% 49% d4T XR (n = 74) d4T IR (n = 76) On-Treatment Values 88% 82% 60% 56%

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 096: CD4 Count - Mean Change From Baseline BL  CD4 (cells/  L) Week d4T XR: d4T IR: d4T XR (n = 74) d4T IR (n = 76)

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 096: Selected Clinical Adverse Events Related to Study Regimen (  Grade 2) Neuropathy1 (1)8 (11) Headache5 (7)1 (1) Fatigue4 (5)2 (3) Nausea3 (4)3 (4) Diarrhea3 (4)1 (1) Vomiting2 (3)2 (3) GI Disorder3 (4)0 d4T XR n = 74 d4T IR n = 76 Patients, n (%)

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 096:EFV  NFV Due to Intolerance Total Switches1 (1)6 (8) Rash–3 (4) CNS side effects1 (1)3 (4) (dizziness and impaired concentration) Event d4T XR n = 74 d4T IR n = 76 Patients, n (%) All 7 switches occurred at or before day 33 of treatment

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 096:Discontinuation Due to AEs Any event*2 (3)7 (9) GI bleeding1 (1) – Peripheral neurologic symptoms1 (1)4 (5) Facial muscle wasting–1 (1) Rash – 1 (1) Severe nausea, vomiting and headache –1 (1) *Some patients D/C after wk 48: d4T XR, n=1; d4T IR, n=2 Event d4T XR n = 74 d4T IR n = 76 Patients, n (%)

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 096: Selected Laboratory Abnormalities (  Grade 3/4) AST/SGOT2 (3)3 (4) ALT/SGPT2 (3)3 (4) Alkaline Phosphatase1 (1)– Hemoglobin1 (1)1 (1) Other lab parameters, including fasting triglycerides, total cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol were similar between treatment groups d4T XR n = 74 d4T IR n = 76 Patients, n (%)

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 096: Lactate Levels XRIRXRIRXRIRXRIR Week Lactate (mmol/L) 25%-tile Minimum Maximum 75%-tile Baseline Median

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/ Conclusions n Over weeks, d4T XR (QD) in triple combination with 3TC + EFV was similar to d4T IR (BID) with regard to —HIV RNA <LOQ —CD4 cell changes —Safety profile

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/02 Zerit XR/PRC Data at CROI n 24 week results -099; Poster 411-W, Session 60; n -096 Population PK substudy Poster 430-W, Session 62; n Single vs multiple dose PK; Poster 429-W, Session 62 n All Wed 4:30-6:30 pm

Brett-Smith, ATAC, 2/24/ VRT-ITT Virologic Response Rates: Week 24 % undetectable <400 c/mL <50 c/mL Reference: Study BMS AI Pollard R et al. 9th CROI, Seattle, Feb Poster 411-W