1 / 8

Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI

Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI. QDMRK SPRING-2. QDMRK Study: raltegravir QD vs BID, with TDF/FTC. Design. Randomisation* 1 : 1 Double-blind. W48. W96. N = 389. > 18 years ARV-naïve HIV RNA > 5,000 c/mL Any CD4 cell count No resistance to TDF or FTC. N = 386.

nicholas-phelps
Download Presentation

Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI

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 INSTI vs INSTI • QDMRK • SPRING-2

  2. QDMRK Study: raltegravir QD vs BID, with TDF/FTC • Design Randomisation* 1 : 1 Double-blind W48 W96 N = 389 > 18 years ARV-naïve HIV RNA > 5,000 c/mL Any CD4 cell count No resistance to TDF or FTC N = 386 *Randomisation was stratified by baseline HIV RNA (< or > 100,000 c/mL) and viral hepatitis co-infection status • Objective • Non inferiority of RAL QD: % HIV RNA < 50 c/mL by ITT, NC=F (lower margin of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference = - 10%, 90% power) Eron JJ, Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11:907-15 QDMRK

  3. QDMRK Study: raltegravir QD vs BID, with TDF/FTC Baseline characteristics and patient disposition Eron JJ, Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11:907-15 QDMRK

  4. RAL BID RAL QD QDMRK Study: raltegravir QD vs BID, with TDF/FTC Response to treatment at week 48 HIV RNA < 50 c/mL HIV RNA < 50 c/mL at W48(NC=failure analysis) by baseline factors % Primary analysis 91.0 100 88.9 86.6 83.2 75 50 25 * 95% CI for the difference = - 8.3 ; 2.7 N = 386 382 377 367 Mean CD4/mm3 increase at W48 (observed-failure analysis): + 196 (RAL BID) vs + 210 (RAL QD) 0 ITT NC = F Per protocol, observed-failure* 95% CI for the difference =( - 10.7 ; -0.8) 95% CI for the difference = (- 9.0 ; 0.2) * Exclusion of discontinuations due to intolerability or reasons unrelated to treatment Eron JJ, Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11:907-15 QDMRK

  5. Safety at W48 QDMRK Study: raltegravir QD vs BID, with TDF/FTC Eron JJ, Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11:907-15 QDMRK

  6. Virologic failure: definition Non-response = never achieved 2 consecutive HIV RNA < 50 c/mL by week 24 or at time of premature study discontinuation or rebound = after an initial response, confirmed HIV RNA > 50 c/mL QDMRK Study: raltegravir QD vs BID, with TDF/FTC * Genotyping was done only in patients with HIV RNA > 400 c/mL 2/2 (RAL BID) and 7/9 (RAL QD) patients who had emergence of RAL resistance had baseline HIV RNA > 100 000 c/mL Eron JJ, Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11:907-15 QDMRK

  7. QDMRK Study: raltegravir QD vs BID, with TDF/FTC • Pharmacokinetic Data • Trough raltegravir concentrations were more than six times higher with twice-daily dosing than they were with once-daily dosing • Although an association between trough RAL concentrations and efficacy was evident in the once-daily group, no clear threshold could be identified Eron JJ, Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11:907-15 QDMRK

  8. Conclusion At 48 weeks of treatment, RAL QD was not non-inferior to RAL BID, in combination with TDF/FTC Virologic failure was more common with once-daily dosing especiallyin patients with baseline HIV RNA > 100 000 c/mL More patients in the once-daily group than in the twice-daily group had resistance emergence to both RAL and FTC at the time of virological failure Patients in the once-daily group with low pharmacokinetic values and high baseline viral loads were at particular risk of treatment failure Despite a high response rate, RAL at 800 mg QD cannot be recommended in place of twice-daily dosing for first-line antiretroviral therapy QDMRK Study: raltegravir QD vs BID, with TDF/FTC Eron JJ, Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11:907-15 QDMRK

More Related