Switching ARVs in Virologically Suppressed Patients.

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.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV/r vs DRV/rATADAR. ATV/r 300/100 mg + TDF/FTC qd N = 91 N = 89 DRV/r 800/100 mg + TDF/FTC qd  Design Randomisation 1: 1 Open-label.
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 TDF/FTC/RPV - SPIRIT Study. SPIRIT study: switch PI/r + 2 NRTI to TDF/FTC/RPV STR  Design TDF/FTC/RPV STR 24 weeks 48 weeks Primary Endpoint.
The 48th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy and 46th Infectious Disease Society of America Meeting Washington, DC October.
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.
Phase 2 of new ARVs  Fostemsavir, prodrug of temsavir (attachment inhibitor) –AI Study  TAF (TFV prodrug) –Study –Study  Doravirine.
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:
Switch to RAL-containing regimen  Canadian Study  CHEER  Montreal Study  EASIER  SWITCHMRK  SPIRAL  Switch ER.
Clinical Aspects of Treatment with Tipranavir Dr Kevin Curry Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK.
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.
TITAN = TMC114/r In Treatment-experienced pAtients Naïve to lopinavir
1 Atazanavir (ATV) With Ritonavir (RTV) or Saquinavir (SQV) vs Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/RTV) in Patients With Multiple Virologic Failures 24-Week Results.
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.
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy  MONOI  MONET  PROTEA  DRV600.
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.
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.
02-15 INFC Substitution of raltegravir for ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in HIV-infected patients: The SPIRAL study* 1 Date of preparation:
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
Switch PI/R to ETR  Etraswitch. Etraswitch Study: Switch PI/r to ETR Continuation of current PI/R + 2 NRTI N = 21 N = 22 ETR 400 mg QD* + 2 NRTI  Design.
Clinical development programme for Second-Line treatment Anton Pozniak World AIDS Conference, July 2014.
NRTI-sparing  SPARTAN  PROGRESS  NEAT001/ANRS 143  MODERN.
Switch to RAL-containing regimen  Canadian Study  CHEER  Montreal Study  EASIER  SWITCHMRK  SPIRAL  Switch ER.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
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.
POWER 3 Study Confirms Safety and Efficacy of Darunavir/Ritonavir in Treatment-Experienced Patients Slideset on: Molina JM, Cohen C, Katlama C, et al.
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.
First-Line Treatment of HIV Infection With Either NNRTI- or PI-Based Regimens Effective for Long-term Disease Control Slideset on: MacArthur RD, Novak.
EPZICOM ® Virologic Response in ART-Naïve Patients with Baseline Viral Loads Above and Below 100,000c/mL Using the A5202 Endpoint K. Pappa, J. Hernandez,
ARV-trial.com Switch to TDF/FTC/EFV AI Study 1.
Dolutegravir plus Rilpivirine as Maintenance Dual Therapy SWORD-1 and SWORD- 2: Design
ARV-trial.com Switch to LPV/r + RAL KITE Study 1.
Lopinavir-ritonavir mg BID (n = 354)
ARV-trial.com Switch to MVC MARCH Study 1.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
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
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
ARV-trial.com Switch to TDF/FTC/EFV AI Study 1.
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NRTI combinations
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.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Presentation transcript:

Switching ARVs in Virologically Suppressed Patients

Data Presentation

AI-073: Switching Suppressed Patients to EFV/FTC/TDF DeJesus E, et al. 48th ICAAC/46th IDSA, Washington, DC, Abst. H-1234 Phase IV, multicenter (55 US sites), open-label study (N=300) Primary Endpoint: Non-inferiority of STR vs. SBR for HIV-1 RNA <200 c/mL through Week 48 by TLOVR analysis Randomization 2:1 Stratify by PI or NNRTI Continue Switch VL<200 c/mL Stable ARV Regimen On 1st regimen or suppressed on previous PI regimen No H/O VF STR=EFV/FTC/TDF QD (n=203) SBR=Stay on Baseline Regimen (n=97)

AI-073: Results at 48 Weeks Virologic Failure STR 3, SBR 1 AE’s all grades STR: Higher incidence - Sleep disturbance 14% vs 0 -Dizziness 11% vs 1% -GI (nauseas, diarrhea) 6% vs 2% DC due to AE’sSTR 10 (5%), SBR 1 (1%) GFR (CG, MDRD) No significant changes Change TG (mg/dl) STR -20, SBR -3 (P=0.035) Pt preferenceSTR 91%, SBR 9% (P=0.001) % with HIV RNA <50 c/mL (TLOVR) Treatment Difference (STR – SBR) 95% CI:2.6% (5.9%, 11.1%) DeJesus E, et al. 48th ICAAC/46th IDSA, Washington, DC, Abst. H-1234

ANRS 138: Enfuvirtide to Raltegravir Switch in Highly Experienced Patients Patients with triple-class resistance and HIV RNA <400 c/mL Randomized to continue ENF (n=85) or switch to RAL (n=84) Median of 13.6 years prior ART and 2.3 years on ENF Week 24 Results: 89% <50 c/mL in both arms Virologic Failure: 1 in each arm (∆ = 0.01%, 95% CI -4.4, +4.5) No significant CD4 changes in either arm Grade 3/4 AE: 11% ENF arm, 19% RAL arm (P=0.12) Conclusion: Raltegravir maintains suppression when substituted for ENF in fully suppressive regimens De Castro N, et al. 16th CROI; Montreal, Canada; February 8-11, Abst. 572.

STARTMRK: RAL vs. EFV in ARV-Naïve Patients Lennox J, et al. 48th ICAAC/46th IDSA, Abst. H-896a RAL + TDF/FTC EFV + TDF/FTC Mean Change (mg/dL) Weeks Percent <50 Copies/mL % Non-inferiority P -Value < % CD4 Count Increase: 189 vs. 163 (p<0.05)

STARTMRK: Predictors of Success Subgroup analyses support consistent efficacy across multiple virologic and immunologic parameters % of Patients with HIV RNA Levels <50 copies/mL SubgroupRaltegravirEfavirenz Overall92%89% Baseline Plasma HIV RNA (c/mL)≤50,00095%87% >50,00090% ≤100,00093%89% >100,00091%89% Baseline CD4 Cell Counts (cells/mm 3 )≤5084%86% >50 to ≤20089%86% >20094%92% Lennox J, et al. 16th CROI; Montreal, Canada; February 8-11, Abst. 573.

D:A:D Study: PIs and Risk of MI Primary model Dyslipidemia Elevated blood pressure Diabetes mellitus Lipodystrophy Glucose All above + lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication Lopinavir/r Indinavir RR of MI (95% CI) Effect of Adjustment for Latest Metabolic Factors * Approximate test for heterogeneity: P=0.02 IDV NFV LPV/r SAQ #PYFU: 68,469 56,529 37,136 44,657 #MI: RR/year (95% CI) Risk with Cumulative Exposure to PI Lundgren JD, et al. 16th CROI; Montreal, Canada; February 8-11, Abst. 42LB.

SWITCHMRK 1 & 2: Study Design Identical, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled studies Enrolled pts with HIV RNA <50 c/mL on LPV/r BID regimen in combination with at least 2 NRTIs No limit on number of prior ART regimens Prior virologic failure not an exclusion No lipid lowering therapy for at least 12 weeks Randomized (1:1) to continue LPV/r or switch to RAL Eron J, et al. 16th CROI, Montreal, Canada, Abst. 70aLB. SWITCHMRK 1SWITCHMRK 2 RAL (N=174) LPV/r (N=174) RAL (N=176) LPV/r (N=178) HIV RNA ≤ 50 c/mL 94.3%92.5%96.0%95.5% Mean CD4 (cells/mm 3 ) LPV/r ≤ 1 yr16.7%17.8%17.6%18.5% Median yrs prior ART (min, max) 3.3 (0.3, 22.3) 3.6 (0.5, 20.2) 3.7 (0.5,19.2) 4.6 (0.6,16.3) Median # prior ART (min, max) 5.0 (4.0, 16.0) 5.0 (2.0, 5.0) 5.5 (3.0,13.0) 6.0 (4.0,14.0)

*Median Percent Change **Not prespecified for test SWITCHMRK 1 and 2: Mean Change in Lipids at Week 12 Eron J, et al. 16th CROI; Montreal, Canada; February 8-11, Abst. 70aLB.

RAL not non-inferior to maintaining LPV/r Further Analysis underway to assess affect of Tx experience on results 84% with confirmed HIV RNA >50 c/mL) in the RAL group were not on 1 st ART regimen; 66% with history of VF on prior regimen(s) SWITCHMRK 1 and 2: Virologic Outcomes (NC = F) Eron J, et al. 16th CROI, Montreal, Canada, Abst. 70aLB.

SWITCHMRK 1 & 2: Resistance Summary at Time of Failure Study Drug Virologic Failures (>400 c/mL) Study drug mutationsRTI mutations RAL 12 N155HK103N NoneV118I, M184V; V179D NoneV179E G140G/S, Q148R, Q148Q/H, N155N/H D67D/G, M184V, T215T/I; Y181C N155HM184M/V; K103R N155H, Q148Q/R, Y143Y/CD67D/N, K70K/R, M184V, K219Q Q148H, G140SM184V; K103N, P225H G140G/S, Q148R, Q148Q/H, N155N/H, Q148Q/RNone N155HNone Y143Y/S, Q148Q/RNone Not done LPV/r 4 L10I/V, G16G/E, L63S, A71A/T, V77INone Not done L10I, K20R, M36I, M46L, I54V, L63P, A71V, V82A, L90MK65R, D67N, K219E; K103R, Y181C V11V/I, L63P, V77INone Eron J, et al. 16th CROI; Montreal, Canada; February 8-11, Abst. 70aLB.

Switching ARVs in Virologically Suppressed Patients Debate/Discussion