46 th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy September 27 - 30, 2006 San Francisco, California Poster #78 Tenofovir DF + Efavirenz.

Slides:



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

Switch to ATV + r-containing regimen - SWAN - SLOAT.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV/r vs DRV/rATADAR. ATV/r 300/100 mg + TDF/FTC qd N = 91 N = 89 DRV/r 800/100 mg + TDF/FTC qd  Design Randomisation 1: 1 Open-label.
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 TDF/FTC/RPV - SPIRIT Study. SPIRIT study: switch PI/r + 2 NRTI to TDF/FTC/RPV STR  Design TDF/FTC/RPV STR 24 weeks 48 weeks Primary Endpoint.
Switch to TDF/FTC/RPV  SPIRIT Study. SPIRIT study: Switch PI/r + 2 NRTI to TDF/FTC/RPV TDF/FTC/RPV STR 24 weeks 48 weeks Primary Endpoint Secondary Endpoint.
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.
Switch to ATV/r-containing regimen  ATAZIP. Mallolas J, JAIDS 2009;51:29-36 ATAZIP ATAZIP Study: Switch LPV/r to ATV/r  Design  Endpoints –Primary:
Switch NNRTI to NNRTI  Switch EFV to ETR –CNS toxicity study –Patient’s preference study.
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.
1 Atazanavir (ATV) With Ritonavir (RTV) or Saquinavir (SQV) vs Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/RTV) in Patients With Multiple Virologic Failures 24-Week Results.
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy  MONOI  MONET  PROTEA  DRV600.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
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.
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.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
Clinical development programme for Second-Line treatment Anton Pozniak World AIDS Conference, July 2014.
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.
Switch to RAL-containing regimen  Canadian Study  CHEER  Montreal Study  EASIER  SWITCHMRK  SPIRAL  Switch ER.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
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.
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.
Time to HAART Resume after Structured Treatment Interruption is Strongly Associated with HIV DNA Level in PBMC at Interruption: Results of the ANRS 116.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
First-Line Treatment of HIV Infection With Either NNRTI- or PI-Based Regimens Effective for Long-term Disease Control Slideset on: MacArthur RD, Novak.
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 to PI/r monotherapy
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
ARV-trial.com Switch to TDF/FTC/EFV AI Study 1.
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
ARV-trial.com Switch to ATV/r + 3TC ATLAS-M Study.
Switch to DTG + RPV Switch to DTG + RPV SWORD Study
Switch to DTG-containing regimen
Switch to DRV/r + 3TC DUAL Study.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to ATV- or ATV/r-containing regimen
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
ARV-trial.com Switch to DRV/r + RPV PROBE Study 1.
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
ARV-trial.com Switch to TDF/FTC/EFV AI Study 1.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Switch to DTG-containing regimen
Switch to INSTI + NNRTI Switch to DTG + RPV SWORD Study
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Comparison of NRTI combinations
ARV-trial.com Switch to FTC + ddI + EFV ALIZE 1.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Presentation transcript:

46 th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy September , 2006 San Francisco, California Poster #78 Tenofovir DF + Efavirenz (TDF+EFV) vs Tenofovir DF + Efavirenz + Lamivudine (TDF+EFV+3TC) Maintenance Regimen in Virologically Controlled Patients: COOL Trial PM Girard, 1 A Cabié, 2 C Michelet, 3 R Verdon, 4 C Katlama, 5 P Mercié, 6 L Morand Joubert, 1 G Chêne, 7 P Pétour, 8 and A Trylesinski 8 1 Hop. St Antoine, Paris, France; 2 Hop. Zobda Quitman, Fort de France, France; 3 Hop. Pontchaillou, Rennes, France; 4 Hop. Caen, Caen, France; 5 Hop. Pitie Salpêtrière, Paris, France; 6 Hop. St André, Bordeaux, France; 7 INSERM U593, Bordeaux, France; 8 Gilead Sciences, Inc., Paris, France

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H Introduction HIV-1 infection is a long term illness requiring long term therapy Antiretroviral therapy may induce metabolic abnormalities and fat tissue redistribution Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are associated with such toxicity A 48 week randomized study (the COOL Study) enrolled 143 virologically controlled (BLQ) patients who were switched to 2 simplified new regimens TDF+3TC+EFV vs TDF+EFV

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H Objectives Primary objective: Evaluation of the efficacy of TDF+3TC+EFV versus TDF+EFV QD to maintain plasma HIV-1 RNA BLQ (< 50 copies/mL) (c/mL) at 48 weeks (W48) Main Secondary objectives: – Comparison of the two arms for genotypic resistance profile in case of virological failure – CD4 changes from baseline – Evolution of the lipid profile and morphological changes in fat distribution, and safety Efficacy and genotypic profile data, results of lipid markers, morphological changes and main biological parameters are presented

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H Methods Main Eligibility Criteria: –Stable HAART ≥ 3 months –HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL ≥ 6 months –No HAART failure history –Weight > 45 kg –No CD4+ cell count criteria –No significant laboratory or clinical abnormalities –Creatinine Clearance > 60 mL/min Follow-up was performed at Week 4, 12, 24, 36 and 48 including clinical examination, adverse events assessment, CD4 cell count, HIV-1 RNA level, metabolic parameters and morphologic evaluation. Creatinine Clearance was calculated according to the Cockcroft-Gault equation Success rate was defined as maintained VL BLQ (< 50 c/mL) without study drug modification at W48 Non inferiority limit:14% L4 CT-Scans were performed at baseline and Week 48 (SAT and VAT measurement) Two DSMB meetings were scheduled for formal unblinded statistical review of the first 40 and 80 patients at Week 12 for HIV-1 RNA, CD4, and AE Clinical and biological data were collected via an Electronic Data Capture system (eCRF) allowing a tight follow-up by DSMB in a timely manner Statistical analysis was performed with SAS, version 8.2 –Intent To Treat (ITT) Population defined as all included patients having received at least one dose of study treatment –As Treated (AT) Population defined as all included patients having received at least one dose of study treatment, with at least one evaluation at baseline and after baseline and with no major deviation to the protocol

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H Study Design  Stable HAART Months  VL < 50c/mL Months  Nohistoryof VirologicFailure TDF+EFV TDF+ V+3TC DSMBdatareview randomization1:1 N = 143 patients W4..W12…… W24… 36….. W48 W48 A 48 Week, pilot, open label, multicenter, randomised clinical trial

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H Baseline Characteristics of the ITT Population TDF + 3TC + EFV n = 72 TDF + EFV n = 71 All N = 143 Demographics Median Age (years) [range] 42 [22 to 73]39.5 [22 to 70]40 [22 to 73] Mean Weight (kg) [SD] 68 [12]70 [10]69 [11] Female (%) HIV Infection CDC stage C in % 35 Median CD4 (cells/mm 3 ) [range] [78 to 1775] 410 [104 to 1332] 473 [78 to 1775] Median HIV RNA (c/mL) [range] 50 [20 to 88] 50 [20 to 4700] 50 [20 to 4700] HAART history prior to switch Median Duration (years) [range] 3.6 [0.5 to 7.5]3.7 [1.0 to 7.7]3.7 [0.5 to 7.7] HAART types before randomisation (%) 2 NRTI + 1 NNRTI 2 NRTI + 1 PI Others TC / ZDV as part of the Combination (%)

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H % of Patients with Viral Load < 50 c/mL (ITT / AT Populations) ITTAT TDF+3TC+EFV TDF+EFV :15.5% 95%CI a :23.7% :10% 95%CI a :15.5% N= N=70 N=58N=70N=54 a. Upper bound of 95% CI

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H Main Reasons for Failure at W48 (ITT Population) TDF + 3TC + EFV N = 72 TDF + EFV N = 71 HIV-1 RNA > 50 c/mL % of patients (N) % Patients with emergent NNRTIs Mutations 0% (0)4.2% (3) 0%100% Study Drug Regimen Discontinuation a % of patients (N)2.7% (2)14.0% (10) % AE/SAE (N) Unrelated to Study Drugs Related to Study Drugs -1.4% (1) b -4.2% (3) c % lost to follow-up / Patient request (N)2.7% (2)8.4% (6) a. Except study drug discontinuation of patients with HIV-1 RNA > 50 c/mL b. 1 SAE: « Suicide Attempt » c. 2 SAE and 1 AE: « Transaminases Increase », « Vertigo » and « Transaminases Increase » respectively

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H RT Mutations Emergence from Baseline Patient ID Time to Emergence (Weeks) Viral Load (c/mL) Major RT Mutation(s) Emergence from Baseline NRTIsNNRTIsPIs TDF + EFV (N = 3) W Y188L W 25257,720- K101E K103R a G190A W G190E- TDF + 3TC + EFV (N = 0) a. Pre-existing at baseline

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H Patients with Virological Failure (Only TDF / EFV Arm): Evolution of HIV-1 RNA through W48 Lo g H I V - 1 RN A ( c / m L ] TDF+EFV [N=3/71] BaselineW4W12W24W36W ARV modification a AR b Log HIV-1 RNA (c/mL) a. ZDV + 3TC + ATV b. ZDV + 3TC + IDV + RTV Note: For patient , a decrease of study drug compliance was observed (based on drug returns at study visits) to reach < 50% at W36. For patients and , compliance evaluation was not possible since no bottle returns were recorded

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H “Blips” through W48 Follow-Up: Viral Load > 50 c/mL and Subsequently BLQ Note: Patient # displayed a K103N mutation at W24 and VL BLQ at W48 with no ARV modification

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H Biological Parameters: W48 Change from Baseline BaselineW48 Change from Baseline Both ArmsTDF + 3TC + EFV TDF + EFVpapa Both Armspbpb CD4 Median [IQR] (cells/mm 3 ) N = 137N = 71N = 66N = [345; 663] +35 [-62; 101] +14 [-59; 96] p = [-59; 96] p = Hemogoblin Median [IQR] (g/dl) N = 139N = 71N = 68N = [12.70; 14.40] [0.10; 1.30] [-0.05; 0.90] p = [0.00; 1.30] p < Lactatemia Median [IQR] (ml/min) N = 111N = 59N = 52N = [1.02; 2.00] -0.2 [-0.60; 0.20] [-0.43; 0.28] p = [-0.5; 0.24] p = Creatinine Clearance c Median [IQR] (ml/min) N = 130N = 68N = 62N = [86.9; 115.9] -3.3 [-11.3; 4.5] +1.7 [-11.3; 12.2] p = [-11.2; 8.2] p = 0.31 Phosphatemia Median [IQR] (mmol/l) N = 109N = 57N = 52N = [0.84; 1.10] [-0.14; 0.13] [-0.14; 0.14] p = [-0.14; 0.14] p = 0.97 a. Wilcoxon test (TDF + 3TC + EFV vs TDF + EFV); significant for p < 0.05 b. Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test on overall TDF switched population (Baseline vs W48); significant for p < 0.05 c. According to the Cockcroft-Gault equation

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H Lipids: W48 Change from Baseline (As Treated Population) *W48 change from baseline for Total, HDL cholesterol and Triglycerides were not significantly different between arms. **Wilcoxon signed rank test, Significant when p < 0.05

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H L4 CT Scans: Visceral and Subcutaneous Abdominal Fat [Patients Subgroup of AT Population for Whom Baseline and W48 Data were Available (N = 79)] c m 2 c m 2 c m 2 R a t i o cm/ 2 *W48 change from baseline for VAT, SAT,TAT and VAT/SAT ratio were not significantly different between arms **Wilcoxon signed rank test, significant when p < 0.05

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H Conclusions TDF + 3TC + EFV demonstrates an optimal success rate (97%) as a maintenance regimen when compared to TDF + EFV (82%) TDF + EFV demonstrated lower efficacy due to: –Virological Failure: 4% –Study Drug Discontinuation: 14% Switching to a QD tenofovir based regimen can significantly improve lipid profile even when lipids are within the median normal range at baseline Other improvements in biological parameters were observed following a switch from BID HAART to QD TDF-based HAART No glomerular filtration rate decrease or hypophosphatemia was observed

Girard, ICAAC 2006 September 27-30, 2006, San Francisco, CA. Poster #H Acknowledgements French COOL Investigators and Experts –Dr BENTATA, Hôpital Avicennes, Bobigny; Pr BESNIER, CHU Tours; Dr CABIÉ, Hôpital Paul Zobda Quitman, Fort de France; Pr CHÊNE, Inserm U593, Bordeaux; Pr DELFRAISSY, CHU Kremlin-Bicêtre; Dr DURANT, CHU de Nice; Pr GALLAIS, Hôpital La Conception, Marseille; Pr GIRARD, CHU Saint-Antoine, Paris; Pr HOEN, Hôpital Saint Jacques, Besançon; Pr KATLAMA, CHU Pitié- Salpêtrière; Dr LIVROZET, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Pr MAY, CHU de Nancy; Pr MERCIÉ, CHU de Bordeaux; Pr MICHELET, CHU de Rennes; Dr MORAND-JOUBERT, CHU Saint-Antoine, Paris; Dr PARTISANI, Hôpital Civil de Strasbourg; Pr PELLEGRIN, Hôpital Haut-Lévêque, Pessac; Dr PRAZUCK, CHR d’Orléans; Pr ROZENBAUM, Hôpital Tenon Paris; Pr SALMON, Hôpital Cochin, Paris; Pr SERENI, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris; Dr SIMON, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris; Dr STRADY, Hôpital de Reims; Pr VERDON, CHU de Caen; Pr VITTECOQ, Hôpital Paul Brousse, Villejuif; Pr WEISS, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris; Dr ZUCMAN, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes Gilead Sciences, Inc. –Dr C. AUBRON-OLIVIER, A. FIREK; N. FORGET; Dr F. MONCHECOURT. Study Sites Personnel and Patients