Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M03-613  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy - Pilot LPV/r - M American Study - KalMo - OK - OK04 - KALESOLO - MOST - HIV-NAT 077.
Advertisements

Switch to LPV/r monotherapy - Pilot LPV/r - M American Study - KalMo - OK - OK04 - KALESOLO - MOST - HIV-NAT 077.
Switch to EVG/c/FTC/TDF  STRATEGY-PI Study  STRATEGY-NNRTI Study.
Switch to RAL-containing regimen - Canadian Study - CHEER - Montreal Study - EASIER - SWITCHMRK - SPIRAL.
Switch to ATV + r-containing regimen - SWAN - SLOAT.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy  ATARITMO  Swedish Study  ACTG A5201  OREY  MODAt Study.
Switch to ATV-containing regimen  ARIES Study  INDUMA Study  ASSURE Study.
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy  MONOI  MONET  PROTEA  DRV600.
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI  QDMRK  SPRING-2. Eron JJ, Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11: QDMRK  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of RAL QD: % HIV.
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.
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.
Switch to ATV ± r-containing regimen  SWAN Study  SLOAT Study.
Switch to ATV- or ATV/r-containing regimen Switch to ATV/r-containing regimen  ATAZIP Switch to ATV ± r-containing regimen  SWAN Study  SLOAT Study.
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 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.
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy  ATARITMO  Swedish Study  ACTG A5201  OREY  MODAt Study.
Switch to PI/r monotherapy
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
ARV-trial.com Switch to TDF/FTC/EFV AI Study 1.
Switch to PI/r + 3TC vs PI/r monotherapy
ARV-trial.com Switch to ATV/r + 3TC ATLAS-M Study.
Switch to DTG + RPV Switch to DTG + RPV SWORD Study
ARV-trial.com Switch to LPV/r + RAL KITE Study 1.
Switch to DTG + 3TC ASPIRE Study.
Switch to DTG-containing regimen
Switch to DRV/r + 3TC DUAL Study.
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
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy
Switch to LPV/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
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to ATV- or ATV/r-containing regimen
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
ARV-trial.com Switch to TDF/FTC/EFV AI Study 1.
Switch to DTG-containing regimen
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
ARV-trial.com Switch to ATV/r + RAL HARNESS Study 1.
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
ARV-trial.com Switch to FTC + ddI + EFV ALIZE 1.
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Presentation transcript:

Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077

 Design  Objective –Non inferiority of the monotherapy group in the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL at W48 without modification of treatment (per-protocol analysis) ; lower limit of two-sided 90% CI for the difference = - 12%, 80% power –Patients lost to follow-up or with no HIV-1 RNA value at W48 were considered as failures (missing = failure) Continuation current triple antiretroviral therapy (CART) LPV/r 400/100 mg bid Randomisation* 1 : 1 Open-label HIV+ ≥ 18 years On stable cART > 3 months No history of prior virologic failure on PI HIV-1 RNA 6 months N = 87 N = 99 W48 KALESOLO Study: Switch to LPV/r monotherapy Meynard JL, JAC 2010;65: KALESOLO * Randomisation was stratified by centre, and ongoing treatment (LPV/r, PI other than LPV/r, NNRTI)

KALESOLO Study: Switch to LPV/r monotherapy Continuation of cART N = 99 LPV/r monotherapy N = 87 Median age, years4344 Female24%28% CDC stage C28%25% CD4 cell count, median/mm HIV-RNA < 50 c/mL96%94% ARV at inclusion TC/FTC ZDV TDF ABC ddI 78% 38% 33% 21% 15% 80% 41% 25% 21% 16% NNRTI 25%29% PI: LPV/r ; other PI 33% ; 41%32% ; 39% Discontinuation by W48, n910 (6 re-intensified) Baseline characteristics and patient disposition Meynard JL, JAC 2010;65: KALESOLO

Virologic outcome at W48 KALESOLO Study: Switch to LPV/r monotherapy cART N = 12 LPV/mono N = 14 HIV-1 RNA > 50 c/mL05 HIV-1 RNA measure missing 50 Change of ARV For virologic failure For adverse event Meynard JL, JAC 2010;65: KALESOLO Therapeutic failure  Non inferiority of LPV/r monotherapy not demonstrated HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL 95% CI for the difference = ; % CI for the difference = ; 10.4 HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL with re-intensification allowed % N= LPV/r monoContinue cART

KALESOLO Study: Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Multivariate analysis: treatment failure was not associated with adherence to therapy but was associated with older age at baseline  Of samples with HIV-1 RNA > 50 c/mL, 20 genotypes from 14 patients (all in the LPV/r monotherapy group) could be analysed: 1 patient developed major PI resistance mutation, no patient developed mutations conferring resistance to LPV/r  For lipids, fasting total cholesterol changes were significantly higher in the LPV/r monotherapy group ( mmol/L vs mmol/L ; p = 0.04)  None of the 12 serious adverse events were drug-related  Grade 3 to 4 laboratory abnormalities occurred in 3 patients in each group  Diarrhoea was more frequent in the LPV/r monotherapy group (N = 34 vs N = 13 ; p < 0.001) Other outcomes Meynard JL, JAC 2010;65: KALESOLO

KALESOLO Study: Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Conclusions –In patients with virologic suppression, by per-protocol analysis, LPV/r monotherapy did not achieve non inferiority versus continuation of current antiretroviral regimen for maintaining HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL –The incidence of virologic failure was low and successfully managed by treatment reintensification Meynard JL, JAC 2010;65: KALESOLO