Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Switch to EVG/c/FTC/TDF  STRATEGY-PI Study  STRATEGY-NNRTI Study.
Advertisements

Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI  QDMRK  SPRING-2. Raffi F. Lancet 2013;381:  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of DTG at W48: % HIV RNA < 50 c/mL.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
Phase 2 of new ARVs TAF (TFV prodrug) - Study Study
Phase 2 of new ARVs BMS (maturation inhibitor)
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
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.
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 M M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2.
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089  LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TCMONARK  LPV/r QD vs BIDM M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2 NRTIGARDEL.
Comparison of RTV vs Cobi  GS-US Gallant JE. JID 2013;208:32-9 GS-US  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of COBI compared with RTV.
Phase 2 of new ARVs  Fostemsavir, prodrug of temsavir (attachment inhibitor) –AI Study  TAF (TFV prodrug) –Study –Study  Doravirine.
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES.
Switch NNRTI to NNRTI  Switch EFV to ETR –CNS toxicity study –Patient’s preference study.
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES.
Comparison of NRTI combinations  ZDV/3TC vs TDF + FTC –Study 934  ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC –HEAT Study –ACTG A5202 Study –ASSERT Study  FTC/TDF vs FTC/TAF.
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089  LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TCMONARK  LPV/r QD vs BIDM M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2 NRTIGARDEL.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy  MONOI  MONET  PROTEA  DRV600.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI  QDMRK  SPRING-2. Eron JJ, Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11: QDMRK  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of RAL QD: % HIV.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
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.
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089  LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TCMONARK  LPV/r QD vs BIDM M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2 NRTIGARDEL.
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES.
NIAID ERADICATE Open-label W12 ≥ 18 years Chronic HCV infection Genotype 1 Treatment naïve HIV infection on stable ART ≥ 8 weeks and HIV RNA < 50 c/ml.
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089  LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TCMONARK  LPV/r QD vs BIDM M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2 NRTIGARDEL.
NRTI-sparing  SPARTAN  PROGRESS  NEAT001/ANRS 143  MODERN.
Phase 2 of new ARVs  Fostemsavir, prodrug of temsavir (attachment inhibitor) –AI Study  TAF (TFV prodrug) –Study –Study  Doravirine.
Switch to ATV- or ATV/r-containing regimen Switch to ATV/r-containing regimen  ATAZIP Switch to ATV ± r-containing regimen  SWAN Study  SLOAT Study.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
Comparison of EFV vs MVC  MERIT Study.  Design N = 361 N = 360  Objective –Non inferiority of MVC vs EFV: % HIV RNA < 400 c/mL and < 50 c/mL (co-primary.
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089  LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TCMONARK  LPV/r QD vs BIDM M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2 NRTIGARDEL.
Comparison of NRTI combinations  ZDV/3TC vs TDF + FTC –Study 934  ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC –HEAT Study –ACTG A5202 Study –ASSERT Study  FTC/TDF vs FTC/TAF.
NRTI-sparing  SPARTAN  PROGRESS  NEAT001/ANRS 143  MODERN.
Comparison of RTV vs Cobi  GS-US Gallant JE. JID 2013;208:32-9 GS-US  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of COBI compared with RTV.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257.
Switch to low dose ATV/r  LASA Study.  Design  Endpoints –Primary: proportion of patients with HIV RNA < 200 c/mL at W48 (ITT-E) ; non-inferiority.
Switch NNRTI to NNRTI  Switch EFV to ETR –CNS toxicity study –Patient’s preference study.
ARV-trial.com Switch to TDF/FTC/EFV AI Study 1.
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
Comparison of INSTI vs PI
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV
Comparison of EFV vs MVC
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Comparison of NRTI combinations
ARV-trial.com Switch to TDF/FTC/EFV AI Study 1.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Switch to INSTI + NNRTI Switch to DTG + RPV SWORD Study
Comparison of INSTI vs PI
Comparison of NRTI combinations
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
ARV-trial.com Switch to FTC + ddI + EFV ALIZE 1.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Presentation transcript:

Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE

 Design  Objective –Non inferiority of EFV 400 mg at W48: % HIV RNA < 200 c/mL by modified intention to treat analysis (all randomised participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and at least one follow-up visit), 2-sided significance level of 5%, lower margin of the 95% CI for the difference = -10%, 90% power TDF/FTC + EFV 400 mg (2 x 200 mg pills + 1 placebo pill) QD TDF/FTC + EFV 600 mg (3 x 200 mg pills) QD Randomisation* 1 : 1 Double-blind > 16 years ARV-naïve HIV RNA > 1,000 c/mL CD4 cell count: /mm 3 Creatinine clearance > 50 mL/min *Randomisation was stratified by clinical site and by HIV RNA ( 100,000 c/mL) at screening N = 312 N = 324 W48W96 Encore1 Study Group, Puls R. Lancet 2014;383: ENCORE1 ENCORE1 Study: (EFV 400 mg vs 600 mg QD) + TDF/FTC

EFV TDF/FTC N = 321 EFV TDF/FTC N = 309 Mean age, years Female31%33% HIV RNA (log 10 c/mL), median HIV RNA > 100,000 c/mL33.3%34.6% CD4 cell count (/mm 3 ), mean CD4 < 200 per mm 3 24%26% Hepatitis B / hepatitis C coinfection5% / 2%4% / 19% Discontinuation by W4810 (3.1%)14 (3.6%) DiedN = 2N = 3 Withdrew consentN = 3 Lost to follow-upN = 4N = 3 Missed week 48 visitN = 1N = 5 Baseline characteristics and patient disposition ENCORE1 ENCORE1 Study: (EFV 400 mg vs 600 mg QD) + TDF/FTC Encore1 Study Group, Puls R. Lancet 2014;383:

Response to treatment at week 48, globally and by baseline HIV RNA ( 100,000 c/mL) ENCORE1 ENCORE1 Study: (EFV 400 mg vs 600 mg QD) + TDF/FTC Encore1 Study Group, Puls R. Lancet 2014;383: HIV RNA < 200 c/mL % Difference (95% CI) =1.8% (-3.7 ; 7.4) EFV TDF/FTC EFV TDF/FTC mITT HIV RNA < 5 log ITT, NC= F HIV RNA > 5 log All patients HIV RNA < 50 c/mL mITTPer protocol All patients HIV RNA < 5 log HIV RNA > 5 log All patients HIV RNA < 5 log HIV RNA > 5 log Difference (95% CI) =1.8% (-2.1 ; 5.8) Difference (95% CI) =1.5% (-3.5 ; 6.5) 0

EFV TDF/FTCEFV TDF/FTC P Patients with adverse events89.1%88.4% Grade 172.9%73.1% Grade 222.5%21.5% Grade 34.1%5.0% Grade 40.4% Serious adverse events, N patients23 (7.1%)22 (7.1%) Related to study drugsN = 3N = 4 Adverse events definitively or probably related to study drug, N patients 118 (36.8%)146 (47.2%)0.008 Discontinuation due to drug-related adverse event N = 6 (1.9%)N = 18 (5.8%)0.01 Adverse events of specific interest Neuro-psychiatric45%51%NS CNSN = 231N = 272 PsychiatricN = 13N = 12 RashN = 68N = 105 GastrointestinalN = 62N = 78 HepatotoxicityN = 1N = 0 Adverse events at week 48 ENCORE1 ENCORE1 Study: (EFV 400 mg vs 600 mg QD) + TDF/FTC Encore1 Study Group, Puls R. Lancet 2014;383:

 Other safety aspects at week 48 –By week 48, discontinuation of EFV : 26 (8%) in EFV 400 vs 34 (11%) in EFV 600 –Frequency of serious adverse events was similar in both groups –No difference between randomised groups in quality of life, depression, anxiety and stress, and EFV-related symptoms over 48 weeks –No significant differences between EFV 400 and EFV 600 in change from baseline to week 48 for most laboratory parameters, except Neutrophils Mean change in creatinine clearance : 1.29 mL/min vs – 2.17 mL/min Mean alkaline phosphatase increase : + 26 vs + 33 IU/L ENCORE1 ENCORE1 Study: (EFV 400 mg vs 600 mg QD) + TDF/FTC Encore1 Study Group, Puls R. Lancet 2014;383:

 Conclusion –A reduced dose of 400 mg EFV QD is non-inferior to the standard dose of 600 mg QD, when combined with TDF/FTC during 48 weeks in ART-naive adults with HIV-1 infection –Overall, the frequency of adverse events did not differ and there was no evidence of difference in treatment cessation between groups –However, adverse events related to the study drug were more frequent with 600 mg EFV than with 400 mg, and discontinuation due to adverse events more frequent with EFV 600 mg –Quality of life, negative emotional state, and efavirenz side-effect based on specific questionnaires did not differ between EFV 600 and 400 mg QD –These findings provide an opportunity to reduce the unit costs of treatment and care models that are based on EFV use ENCORE1 ENCORE1 Study: (EFV 400 mg vs 600 mg QD) + TDF/FTC Encore1 Study Group, Puls R. Lancet 2014;383: