Persisting long term benefit of genotypic guided treatment in HIV infected patients failing HAART and Importance of Protease Inhibitor plasma levels. Viradapt.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Indinavir/Ritonavir 800/200 mg bid based regimen in multi-experienced HIV positive patients with extensive drug resistance. A.Vincenti1, L. Vatteroni2,
Advertisements

Objective of the DAP A) Specify an analysis plan that can be applied to a wide variety of clinical HIV resistance studies. B) Include both Intervention.
Background  Hypertrigliceridaemia is common in patients with HIV, especially those taking protease inhibitors (PIs) or with lipodystrophy.  Although,
6/28/00TPED1 Resistance Testing: What is it? What does it mean? How does drug resistance emerge? Overview of methods Advantages and disadvantages Current.
Salvage Antiretroviral Therapy Guiding Principles, Strategies and the Role of Resistance Testing.
The Unique Resistance Profile of Tipranavir Dr Kevin Curry Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK.
ACTG 333 The Antiviral Effect of Switching from Saquinavir to the New Formulation of Saquinavir vs. Switching to Indinavir After >1 year of Saquinavir.
Combination Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV Infection by Ormrat Kampeerawipakorn.
De Luca A 1,2, Bracciale L 1, Doino M 1, Fabbiani M 1, Sidella L 1, Marzocchetti A 1, Farina S 1, D’Avino A 1, Cauda R 1, Di Giambenedetto S 1 Safety and.
Global HIV Resistance: The Implications of Transmission
Transition Program of HIV-infected adolescents to Adult HIV care in Buenos Aires, Argentina S. Arazi Caillaud 1, D. Mecikovsky 1, A.Bordato.
Tipranavir NDA : Efficacy Evaluation Rafia Bhore, Ph.D. Statistician Reviewer Division of Antiviral Drug Products Food and Drug Administration May.
Clinical Aspects of Treatment with Tipranavir Dr Kevin Curry Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK.
Predicting NNRTI Resistance – do polymorphisms matter? Nicola E Mackie 1, Lucy Garvey 1, Anna Maria Geretti 2, Linda Harrison 3, Peter Tilston 4, Andrew.
1 Resistance and Tropism - Maraviroc Lisa K. Naeger, Ph.D. Division of Antiviral Products Food and Drug Administration April 24, 2007 FDA Antiviral Advisory.
TO EVALUATE EARLY ANTIVIRAL RESPONSE AND SAFETY OF A DUAL BOOSTED PROTEASE INHIBITORS REGIMEN INCLUDING LOPINAVIR/r (LPV) PLUS AMPRENAVIR (AMP) OR FORTOVASE.
INTRODUCTION Evaluation of Outcomes in Patients Starting Antiretroviral Therapy During Hospitalization Leigh E. Efird, PharmD 1, Manish Patel, PharmD 1,
Challenges to replacing CD4 testing with viroloigical monitoring Andrew Hill, Pharmacology Research Laboratories, University of Liverpool, UK World AIDS.
TITAN = TMC114/r In Treatment-experienced pAtients Naïve to lopinavir
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
Immune Discordance on Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Can Still be Regarded as a Therapeutic Success Nur F. Önen MD, MRCP 1, Rachel Presti MD PhD.
1 Atazanavir (ATV) With Ritonavir (RTV) or Saquinavir (SQV) vs Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/RTV) in Patients With Multiple Virologic Failures 24-Week Results.
HIV-1 dynamics Perelson et.al. Science 271:1582 (1996) Infected CD4 + lymphocytes Uninfected, activated CD4 + lymphocytes HIV-1 t 1/ days t 1/2.
Simplification from Protease Inhibitors to Once or Twice Daily Raltegravir: the ODIS trial Eugenia Vispo, Pablo Barreiro, Francisco Blanco, Sonia Rodríguez-Novoa*,
Combined PI and NNRTI Resistance Analysis of the Pooled DUET Trial: Towards a Regimen-Based Resistance Interpretation J. M. Schapiro, J. Vingerhoets, S.
Efficacy and Safety of Maraviroc in Treatment- Experienced (TE) Patients Infected with R5 HIV-1: 96-week Combined Analysis of the MOTIVATE 1 & 2 Studies.
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy  MONOI  MONET  PROTEA  DRV600.
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.
12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections February 22-25, 2005 Boston, Massachusetts, USA Poster No. 830 Hematological Benefit of Switching.
PO 2726; IAS; Vicriviroc (formerly SCH ): Antiviral Activity of a Potent New CCR5 Receptor Antagonist D. Schuermann, C. Pechardscheck, R. Rouzier,
Progressive histological liver improvement after sustained virological response to therapy in HCV / HIV coinfected patients. Jose L. Casado,
02-15 INFC Substitution of raltegravir for ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in HIV-infected patients: The SPIRAL study* 1 Date of preparation:
Enfuvirtide for Drug-Resistant HIV Infection in North and South America Simon R. Bababeygy.
Potential Utility of Tipranavir in Current Clinical Practice Daniel R. Kuritzkes, MD Director of AIDS Research Brigham and Woman’s Hospital Division of.
Clinical development programme for Second-Line treatment Anton Pozniak World AIDS Conference, July 2014.
Strategies for Management of Antiretroviral Therapy Study Wafaa El-Sadr and James Neaton for the SMART Study Team.
Switch to RAL-containing regimen  Canadian Study  CHEER  Montreal Study  EASIER  SWITCHMRK  SPIRAL  Switch ER.
Design of the RESIST Study Program Dr Kevin Curry Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK.
Date of download: 5/28/2016 Copyright © 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. From: Low-Frequency HIV-1 Drug Resistance Mutations and.
Copyright © 2008 Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA All rights Reserved Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) Analyses for Raltegravir.
Response to Antiretroviral Treatment In an Ethiopian Hospital Samuel Hailemariam, MD, MPH; J Allen McCutchan, MD, MSc Meaza Demissie, MD, PMH, PHD; Alemayehu.
HAART Initiation Within 2 Weeks of Seroconversion Associated With Virologic and Immunologic Benefits Slideset on: Hecht FM, Wang L, Collier A, et al. A.
POWER 3 Study Confirms Safety and Efficacy of Darunavir/Ritonavir in Treatment-Experienced Patients Slideset on: Molina JM, Cohen C, Katlama C, et al.
ACTG 5142: First-line Antiretroviral Therapy With Efavirenz Plus NRTIs Has Greater Antiretroviral Activity Than Lopinavir/Ritonavir Plus NRTIs Slideset.
First-Line Treatment of HIV Infection With Either NNRTI- or PI-Based Regimens Effective for Long-term Disease Control Slideset on: MacArthur RD, Novak.
KLEAN Study: Fosamprenavir/Ritonavir Associated With Similar Efficacy and Safety as Lopinavir/Ritonavir SGC in Treatment- Naive Patients Slideset on: Eron.
Tipranavir/Ritonavir Superior to Comparator PI/Ritonavir at Week 48 in Multiclass-Experienced Patients Slideset on: Hicks CB, Cahn P, Cooper DA, et al.
Adefovir Suppresses HBV DNA Levels in Lamivudine-Resistant HIV/HBV Patients Slideset on: Benhamou Y, Thibault V, Vig P, et al. Safety and efficacy of adefovir.
Telbivudine Versus Lamivudine in Chinese Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B: Results at 1 Year of a Randomized, Double-Blind Trial HEPATOLOGY 2008;47:
Rilpivirine-TDF-FTC versus Efavirenz-TDF-FTC STaR Trial
undetectable (undetectable-6.25)
Figure 1 Inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and criteria for virologic failure. CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; ddC, zalcitabine;
Etravirine in Treatment Experienced DUET-2 (TMC125-C216)
Switch to RPV-TDF-FTC from Ritonavir-boosted PI Regimen SPIRIT STUDY
Lopinavir-ritonavir mg BID (n = 354)
Etravirine versus Protease Inhibitor in ARV-Experienced TMC 125-C227
Once Daily Etravirine versus Efavirenz in Treatment-Naive SENSE Trial
Dolutegravir versus Raltegravir in Treatment Experienced SAILING Study
Etravirine in Treatment Experienced DUET-1 (TMC125-C206)
Atazanavir + ritonavir vs. Lopinavir-ritonavir CASTLE Study
Darunavir/r versus Other PIs in Treatment Experienced POWER 1 and 2
Long-Term Clinical and Immunologic Outcomes Are Similar in HIV-Infected Persons Randomized to NNRTI versus PI versus NNRTI+PI-based Antiretroviral Regimens.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION
Presentation transcript:

Persisting long term benefit of genotypic guided treatment in HIV infected patients failing HAART and Importance of Protease Inhibitor plasma levels. Viradapt study, week 48 follow up and Pharmacological data. P.Clevenbergh, J.Durant, R.Garraffo, P. Halfon, P. del Giudice, P. Simonet, N. Montagne, CAB Boucher, JM Schapiro and P. Dellamonica

Background An increasing number of retrospective studies link the presence of resistance mutations with a rebound in viral load. Two prospective studies (GART and Viradapt) showed a short term benefit of genotypic adaptation in patients failing combination therapy

VIRADAPT: Trial Design Inclusion Criteria: HIV-RNA> copies/ml PI > 3 months, NRTI > 6months Randomization CONTROL Group GENOTYPIC Group N= 43 Clinical and Laboratory Evaluation (CD4, HIV-RNA,Genotype,) N= 65 Analysis M3 M6 M12 If virological failure, ARV adaptation according to Randomization

12 months Follow up Study We report the 12 months follow-up of the patients participating in the Viradapt study First 6 months: randomized study with 2 arms After 6 months, patients in both arms received treatment changes based on genotyping results which were performed every three months

Patients and Methods Randomized Open study Genotypic arm     Control arm     M0 M3 M6 M9 M12  Genotyping treatment  Standard of care

Patients and Methods: Statistical Analysis for the first 6 months randomized study Primary End-point: HIV-RNA variation from baseline at Month 3 and 6 (log 10 transformed) Secondary End-Point –Proportion of patients with HIV-RNA < 200 copies/ml –CD4 cell count Statistics –Intent to treat analysis (dropout equal failure) –LOCF

month follow-up study: Patients and Methods Primary End-point HIV-RNA changes from baseline at Month 9 and 12 Secondary End-Point Proportion of patients with HIV-RNA < 200 copies/ml Statistics On treatment analysis

Genotyping Technology

Mutations - Drug Resistance Table

Baseline Characteristics : Demographic data Characteristic Control Adapted to p Genotype Age40.1± ± Sexe Male/Female34/947/ Risk Factor :18/24/130/34/ IVDU/Sexual/Others HIV1-RNALog10 4.8±0.54.7± (range) (3.7-6)( ) CD4 x ± ± Stade CDC:A/B/C 5/16/2216/14/

Prior Antiretroviral Treatment

Baseline Characteristics-Frequency of Primary and Secondary RT mutations

Baseline Characteristics-Frequency of primary and secondary P mutations

Results 41/43 and 40/43 pts in the control arm were evaluable at month 3 and 6 62/65 and 59/65 pts in the genotypic arm were evaluable at month 3 and 6 103/108 (95.4%)pts and 99/108 (91.6%) evaluable at 3 and 6 months 92/108 (85,2%) were evaluable at 12 months and included in the analysis.

Mean changes in plasma HIV-RNA from baseline throughout 12 months in Control and Genotypic arms

Percentage of patients with plasma HIV-RNA below the limit of detection (200 copies/ml) in Control and Genotypic arms

Correlation of baseline primary protease mutations and randomization arm with changes in HIV RNA

Conclusions Virologic response 1.15 log sustained with genotypic guided therapy throughout 1 year ( heavily experienced population) Performance of genotypic guided therapy may have contributed to additional viral load reduction seen in control patients Presence of primary protease mutations and performance of genotypic guided treatment, both independently effect virological response

Importance of Protease Inhibitor plasma levels in patients treated with Genotypic adapted therapy

Background Multiple factors determine the response to antiretroviral therapy and causes other than drug resistance must be considered Poor efficacy may be due to pharmacological parameters resulting in suboptimal drug exposure

Background In contrast to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, significant correlations between antiviral activity and plasma drug concentration have been demonstrated for HIV protease inhibitors Low plasma PI drug levels have been significantly related to the rebound of viral load

Study Objective To correlate Protease Inhibitors plasma levels with the changes in HIV RNA To determine the multiple factors contributing to the efficacy of antiretroviral therapy in treatment experienced patients

Methods Serial protease inhibitor drug levels were analysed in patients participating in the Viradapt study pharmacological substudy N= 87 –Control group: standard of care (until 6mns) –Genotypic Group : genotypic guided therapy Serial PI plasma trough levels were performed in both arms throughout the 12 months study.

Methods Levels of PIs determined by HPLC Samples collected before morning dose Analysis was performed on batched frozen samples Levels determined for all 4 PI ’s utilized in study (saquinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir, indinavir) Data analysed only for patients with at least 3 levels obtained

Results 81 patients evaluated: mean age 39.7±8 years, 59 males, stage CDC C (52,7%) 604 PI plasma levels obtained Similar to the parent study, the 2 groups were comparable in terms of: risk factor, age, sex, previous treatment, CD4 cells count and baseline HIV RNA

PI drug levels

Correlation HIV-RNA and plasma level Saquinavir (n= 289, p=.0007)Nelfinavir (n=85, p=.038) Indinavir (n=21, p=.012) Ritonavir (400 mg bid, n =62, p=.051) 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6, ,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6, ,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,

Pharmacokinetic data of P.I

Optimal Drug Concentrations Sub optimal concentration (SOC):  2 levels less than 2x IC95 Optimal concentration (OC): No more than 1 level less than 2x IC95 SOC = 32%, OC = 68%

Results

Efficacy analysis based on drug levels and randomization arm Patients were categorized in 4 groups: G1 = SOC/Control (n = 13) G2 = OC/Control (n = 22) G3 = SOC/Genotype (n = 13) G4 = OC/Genotype (n = 33)

Efficacy analysis based on drug levels and randomization arm

Percentage of patients with plasma HIV-RNA below the limit of detection (200 copies/ml)

Predictive factors of virological response OR 95%Confidence p Interval PI Concentration2.37 [ ]0.017 > IC 95 x 2 Genotypic therapy 2.24 [ ]0.025 Primary mutations 2.47 [ ]0.014 for PI

Conclusions Drug exposure inversely correlated with plasma HIV RNA (all 4 PI) Genotypic guided therapy, PI concentration, and primary protease mutations: independently effect response to therapy Assays to determine drug levels and resistance mutations may both improve responses in experienced patients

Acknowledgements R.Garraffo: Department of Pharmacology,Nice, France P.Halfon. Alphabio laboratory, Marseille, France. V.Mondain, P.Puglièse, V.Rahelinirina, I.Perbost, C.Pradier, L.Bentz, H.Etesse: Infectious Diseases Department,Nice,France the study nurses ( M.Massard, J.Charlier, G.Valentini, C.Rascle) E.Dohin: Produits Roche France C.Sayada, M.Andriamanamihaja : ACT Gene and Visible Genetics Europe J.Stevens, R. Gilchrist : Visible Genetics Canada E.Counillon,P. Del Giudice : Bonnet Hospital, Frejus, France P.Simonet, N.Montagne. Cannes Hospital France C.A.B Boucher:Department of Virology, University Hospital Utrecht, Netherlands J.M.Schapiro National Hemophilia Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel