1 / 5

Comparison of PI vs PI

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 M02-418 M05-730 A5073 ATV/r vs FPV/r ALERT FPV/r vs LPV/r KLEAN SQV/r vs LPV/r GEMINI ATV/r vs LPV/r CASTLE DRV/r vs LPV/r ARTEMIS. ALERT.

babu
Download Presentation

Comparison of PI vs PI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of PI vs PI • ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089 • LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TC MONARK • LPV/r QD vs BIDM02-418M05-730A5073 • ATV/r vs FPV/rALERT • FPV/r vs LPV/r KLEAN • SQV/r vs LPV/r GEMINI • ATV/r vs LPV/r CASTLE • DRV/r vs LPV/r ARTEMIS

  2. ALERT ALERT Study: ATV/r QD vs FPV/r QD,in combination with TDF/FTC Randomisation* 1:1 Open-label • Design N = 53 FPV/r 1400/100 mg QD + TDF/FTC fdc QD Adults > 18 years ARV-naïve or < 14 days prior ART HIV RNA > 1,000 c/mL Any CD4 cell count N = 53 ATV/r 300/100 mg QD + TDF/FTC fdc QD *Randomisation was stratified on HIV RNA < or > 100,000 c/mL • Objective • Primary endpoint: HIV RNA < 50 c/mL at W48 • No power calculation due to limited sample size Note: FPV/r and TDF/FTC were administered with or without food; ATV/r with food Substitution of ABC/3TC fdc for TDF/FTC was allowed Smith KY. AIDS ResTher 2008;5:5

  3. ALERT ALERT Study: ATV/r QD vs FPV/r QD,in combination with TDF/FTC Baseline characteristics and patient disposition * In 2 of the 4 patients, detection at baseline of pre-existing resistance to FPV or TDF/FTC Smith KY. AIDS ResTher 2008;5:5

  4. ALERT ALERT Study: ATV/r QD vs FPV/r QD,in combination with TDF/FTC Outcome at week 48 HIV RNA < 50 c/mL Safety % FPV/r ATV/r • Diarrhoea and nausea were more frequent in the FPV/r • Grade 3-4 hyperbilirubinemia in ATV/r group = 28% • GFR decline > 25% was similar in both groups; TDF/FTC was discontinued in 3 patients (FPV/r group) for GFR decrease to < 50 mL/min • Median changes in total cholesterol, LDL- cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol were similar in both groups; triglycerides increase was higher in the FPV/r group; use of lipid-lowering agents: FPV/r = 7 vs ATV/r = 1 100 92 89 83 75 80 60 40 20 0 ITT, M/D = F Observed data Mean CD4 increase at W48:170/mm3 (FPV/r) vs 183/mm3 (ATV/r) (p = 0.4) M/D = F : Missing/Discontinuation equals Failure Smith KY. AIDS ResTher 2008;5:5

  5. ALERT ALERT Study: ATV/r QD vs FPV/r QD,in combination with TDF/FTC • Summary - Conclusion • Similar virologic and immunologic outcome at W48 with FPV/r1400/100 mg QD and ATV/r 300/100 mg QD, in combination withTDF/FTC fdc • Higher gastrointestinal intolerance with FPV/r • High incidence of increased bilirubin with ATV/r • Higher triglycerides increase with FPV/r; total, HDL- and LDL-cholesterol changes similar in both groups • Limitation: small size of the study Smith KY. AIDS ResTher 2008;5:5

More Related