1 / 8

Comparison of NRTI combinations

Comparison of NRTI combinations. ZDV/3TC vs TDF + FTC Study 934 ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC HEAT Study ACTG A5202 Study ASSERT Study TAF vs TDF Study 292-0102. Study 934: zidovudine/lamivudine fixed dose combination vs tenofovir + emtricitabine. Study 934. Design. Randomisation* 1 : 1

kylar
Download Presentation

Comparison of NRTI combinations

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 NRTI combinations • ZDV/3TC vs TDF + FTC • Study 934 • ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC • HEAT Study • ACTG A5202 Study • ASSERT Study • TAF vs TDF • Study 292-0102

  2. Study 934: zidovudine/lamivudine fixed dose combination vs tenofovir + emtricitabine Study 934 • Design Randomisation* 1 : 1 Open-label W48 W144 N = 255 517 ARV-naïve patients > 18 years HIV RNA > 10,000 c/mL Any CD4 cell count N = 254 *Randomisation was stratified on CD4 cell count < 200 or > 200/mm3 • Objective • Non inferiority of TDF + FTC + EFV vs ZDV/3TC + EFV at W48: % HIV RNA < 400 c/mL, TLOVR algorithm (lower margin of the 95% CI for the difference = -13%, 85% power) Gallant JE. NEJM 2006;354:251-60

  3. Study 934: zidovudine/lamivudine fixed dose combination vs tenofovir + emtricitabine Study 934 Baseline characteristics * Excluded from primary endpoint analysis Note : TDF, FTC and EFV taken without regards to meals and preferably at bed time; Substitution of NVP for EFV allowed if EFV intolerance; not considered as treatment failure Gallant JE. NEJM 2006;354:251-60

  4. Study 934: zidovudine/lamivudine fixed dose combination vs tenofovir + emtricitabine Study 934 Response to treatment at week 48 Primaryendpoint TDF + FTC ZDV/3TC % /mm3 100 200 190 84 80 158 77 80 160 73 70 68 60 120 40 80 20 40 N = 244 243 244 243 255 254 0 0 HIV RNA < 400 c/mL TLOVR HIV RNA < 50 c/mL TLOVR HIV RNA < 50 c/mL ITT Mean CD4 increase (p = 0.002) 95% CI for the difference = 4; 19 (p = 0.002) 95% CI for the difference = 2; 17 (p = 0.02) 95% CI for the difference = 1; 16 (p = 0.03) Gallant JE. NEJM 2006;354:251-60

  5. Study 934 Study 934: zidovudine/lamivudine fixed dose combination vs tenofovir + emtricitabine • Safety and tolerability: TDF + FTC vs ZDV/3TC • Similar frequency of clinical adverse events grade 2 to 4 and laboratory abnormalities grade 2 to 4 in both groups, respectively 63% vs 63% and 56% vs 57% • Significantly more discontinuations for adverse events in the ZDV/3TC group: 9% vs 4% (p = 0.02); mainly for anemia (N = 14 vs 0) • Renal safety was similar in both groups and no patients discontinued because of renal events. Change in median GFR (MDRD) at W48 was similar in both groups (< - 1 mL/min/1.73 m2). No Fanconi’s syndrome occurred • Mean increase significantly lower in the TDF + FTC group for total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol; increase in triglycerides modest and not different between groups • At week 48, DEXA substudy in 100 patients (no baseline evaluation): significantly less total limb fat with ZDV/3TC (mean 6.9 vs 8.9 kg; p = 0.03) Gallant JE. NEJM 2006;354:251-60

  6. Resistance data Genotypic analysis was done in patients without baseline NNRTI resistance if viral rebound (2 consecutive HIV RNA > 400 c/mL after achieving < 400 c/mL HIV RNA > 400 c/mL at W48 discontinuation before W48 with HIV RNA > 400 c/mL at the last visit Patients with baseline resistance (11 in each group) were excluded from this analysis of resistance Study 934 Study 934: zidovudine/lamivudine fixed dose combination vs tenofovir + emtricitabine * 1 technical failure; ** K103N mutation developed in 21 of 25 patients Gallant JE. NEJM 2006;354:251-60

  7. Study extended to 3 years of follow-up (W144) At week 96, patients on TDF + FTC swithed to fixed-dose combination TDF/FTC Study 934 Study 934: zidovudine/lamivudine fixed dose combination vs tenofovir + emtricitabine * No discontinuation for renal events Arribas JR. JAIDS 2008;47:74-8

  8. Study 934 Study 934: zidovudine/lamivudine fixed dose combination vs tenofovir + emtricitabine • Conclusions • TDF + FTC + EFV is non inferior to ZDV/3TC + EFV • Greater virologic response rates to TDF + FTC + EFV as compared with ZDV/3TC + EFV • Significantly greater CD4 response with TDF + FTC • Greater tolerability of TDF + FTC • This study shows superior outcome in the tenofovir-emtricitabine group • At week 144, TDF/FTC + EFV demonstrates superior durability of viral load suppression and an improved safety and morphologic profile compared with ZDV/3TC and EFV Gallant JE. NEJM 2006;354:251-60; Arribas JR. JAIDS 2008;47:74-8

More Related