1 / 7

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.

rosie
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/r ALERT • FPV/r vs LPV/r KLEAN • SQV/r vs LPV/r GEMINI • ATV/r vs LPV/r CASTLE • DRV/r vs LPV/rARTEMIS

  2. ARTEMIS Study: DRV/r QD vs LPV/r (BID or QD),in combination with TDF/FTC ARTEMIS • Design Randomisation* 1 : 1 Open-label W48 W192 N = 343 > 18 years ARV-naïve HIV RNA > 5,000 c/mL Any CD4 cell count N = 346 *Randomisation was stratified by HIV RNA (< or > 100,000 c/mL)and CD4 (< or > 200/mm3) at screening • Objective • Non inferiority of DRV/r vs LPV/r at W48: % HIV RNA < 50 c/mL by per-protocol TLOVR analysis (lower margin of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference = - 12%, 90% power). Superiority tested by ITT if non inferiority established Ortiz R. AIDS 2008;22:1389-97

  3. ARTEMIS Study: DRV/r QD vs LPV/r (BID or QD),in combination with TDF/FTC ARTEMIS Baseline characteristics and patient disposition * 3 patients excluded for the per-protocol analysis (did not received study medication or received disallowed therapy for more than 1 week) ** LPV/r was administered BID or QD according to investigator and/or patient preference (77% received BID, 15% QD and 8% both; 15% received soft-gel capsules, 2% tablets and 83% switched from SGC to tablets) Ortiz R. AIDS 2008;22:1389-97

  4. ARTEMIS Study: DRV/r QD vs LPV/r (BID or QD),in combination with TDF/FTC ARTEMIS Response to treatment at week 48 HIV RNA < 50 c/mL (TLOVR) HIV RNA < 50 c/mL at W48 (per-protocol, TLOVR) by baseline stratification factors % Per protocol ITT 100 84 84 78 78 75 50 25 * p < 0.05 N = 343 346 343 346 0 DRV/r LPV/r DRV/r LPV/r Median CD4/mm3 increase at W48 (ITT, NC = F): 137 (DRV/r) vs 141 (LPV/r) 95% CI for the difference = - 0.1; 11 (p < 0.001)  Non inferiority • 95% CI for the difference • = - 0.3; 11 • Test for superiority • (p = 0.062) Ortiz R. AIDS 2008;22:1389-97

  5. ARTEMIS Study: DRV/r QD vs LPV/r (BID or QD),in combination with TDF/FTC Virologic failure Definition: HIV RNA never suppressed below 50 c/mL at W24 or confirmed HIV RNA > 50 c/mL after achieving < 50 c/mL or last observed HIV RNA > 50 c/mL followed by discontinuation ARTEMIS Resistance data * 1 patient with HIV RNA > 1,000 c/mL did not have genotype available ** A71T and V77I Ortiz R. AIDS 2008;22:1389-97

  6. W48 Safety: DRV/r vs LPV/r Discontinuations for adverse events (AE) were significantly less frequent in the DRV/r group: 3% vs 7% (p < 0.05) Rate of serious AE was not significantly different: 7% vs 12% Incidence of grade 2 to 4 gastrointestinal AE was significantly lower in the DRV/r group: 7% vs 14% (p < 0.01); these were mainly diarrhoea: 4% vs 10% (p < 0.01) Rash incidence was not significantly different: 3% vs 1%; 1 case of Stevens-Johnson occurred in the DRV/r group No patients discontinued because of renal events Mean increases in triglycerides and total cholesterol were less pronounced with DRV/r; grade 2 to 4 elevations in triglycerides and total cholesterol were significantly less frequent with DRV/r: 3% vs 11% and 13% vs 23%, respectively Hepatic safety was similar in both groups ARTEMIS ARTEMIS Study: DRV/r QD vs LPV/r (BID or QD),in combination with TDF/FTC Ortiz R. AIDS 2008;22:1389-97

  7. ARTEMIS Study: DRV/r QD vs LPV/r (BID or QD),in combination with TDF/FTC • Summary - Conclusion • DRV/r QD is non inferior to LPV/r, when co-administered with TDF/FTC(1) • Greater virologic response, at W48 (HIV RNA < 50 c/mL) to DRV/ras compared with LPV/r in patients with high pre treatment HIV RNA (significant difference) or low CD4 count • Lower incidence of diarrhoea with DRV/r vs LPV/r • Lipid elevations were less pronounced with DRV/r • At W96(2), significantly more DRV/r (79%) than LPV/r (71%) patients had HIV RNA < 50 c/mL confirming non inferiority and superiority(p = 0.012; ITT) in virologic response • Safety outcomes confirmed W48 results: more favourable gastrointestinal and lipid profile of DRV/r QD • Lipid-lowering agents use by W96: 8% LPV/r vs 7% DRV/r • Overall, discontinuation for adverse events occurred in 4% of DRV/r patients vs 9% of LPV/r patients (1) Ortiz R. AIDS 2008;22:1389-97 ; (2) Mills AM. AIDS 2009;23:1679-88

More Related