Switch to ATV ± r-containing regimen  SWAN Study  SLOAT Study.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Switch to RAL-containing regimen - Canadian Study - CHEER - Montreal Study - EASIER - SWITCHMRK - SPIRAL.
Advertisements

Switch to ATV + r-containing regimen - SWAN - SLOAT.
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.
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.
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 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.
Switch to ATV/r + 3TC  SALT Study. ATV/r 300/100 mg qd + 2 NRTI (investigator-selected) N = 143 ATV/r 300/100 mg + 3TC 300 mg qd  Design Randomisation*
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:
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES.
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.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy  ATARITMO  Swedish Study  ACTG A5201  OREY  MODAt Study.
Switch to ATV-containing regimen  ARIES Study  INDUMA Study  ASSURE Study.
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy  MONOI  MONET  PROTEA  DRV600.
Switch to DRV/r monotherapy  MONOI  MONET  PROTEA  DRV600.
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.
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.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
Switch PI/R to ETR  Etraswitch. Etraswitch Study: Switch PI/r to ETR Continuation of current PI/R + 2 NRTI N = 21 N = 22 ETR 400 mg QD* + 2 NRTI  Design.
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 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 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.
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy  ATARITMO  Swedish Study  ACTG A5201  OREY  MODAt Study.
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.
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
Switch to PI/r + 3TC vs PI/r monotherapy
ARV-trial.com Switch to ATV/r + 3TC ATLAS-M Study.
Switch to DTG + RPV Switch to DTG + RPV SWORD Study
ARV-trial.com Switch to MVC MARCH Study 1.
Switch to DTG + 3TC ASPIRE Study.
Switch to DTG-containing regimen
Switch to DRV/r + 3TC DUAL Study.
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Switch ABC/3TC to TDF/FTC
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
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
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
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
ARV-trial.com Switch to TDF/FTC/EFV AI Study 1.
Switch to DTG-containing regimen
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
ARV-trial.com Switch to ATV/r + RAL HARNESS Study 1.
ARV-trial.com Switch to DTG/ABC/3TC STRIIVING NEAT
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
ARV-trial.com Switch to FTC + ddI + EFV ALIZE 1.
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Presentation transcript:

Switch to ATV ± r-containing regimen  SWAN Study  SLOAT Study

SLOAT Study: switch LPV/r to ATV+r  Design  Objective  Non inferiority in the proportion of patients with virologic rebound at W48 (upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference = 90%, 90% power)  Virologic rebound: HIV-1 RNA > 50 c/mL Switch to ATV+r qd* + continue NRTIs Continue LPV/r + NRTIs * ATV 400 mg (N = 49), or ATV/r 300/100 mg if TDF part of NRTI backbone (N = 53) Randomisation Open-label 224 HIV+ patients On LPV/r + 2 NRTIs ≥ 3 months HIV RNA < 50 c/mL ≥ 24 weeks N = 87 N = 102 W48 Soriano V, JAC 2008;61:200-5 SLOAT

SLOAT Study: switch LPV/r to ATV+r LPV/r N = 87 ATV+r N = 102 Median age, years4042 Female41%18% Median CD4 cell count/mm Median exposure to prior ARV, months*3857 Chronic Hepatitis C45%36% Chronic hepatitis B3% Discontinuation before W48, n1 (lost to follow-up)2 (jaundice) Baseline characteristics and patient disposition * Nearly half of the patients had been exposed to other PIs, before LPV/r, and failure on prior PIs had occurred in two-thirds of these PI-experienced patients Soriano V, JAC 2008;61:200-5 SLOAT

SLOAT Study: switch LPV/r to ATV+r Virologic failure /1029/87 % Results: W48 outcome  Resistance mutations at virologic failure –LPV/r: 1/9 –ATV: 2/5 –ATV/r: 3/7  Median ATV C trough * –ATV/r:0.822 mg/L –ATV:0.234 mg/L  Median CD4 increase between baseline and W48 –LPV/r:46/mm 3 –ATV+r:42/mm 3 Soriano V, JAC 2008;61:200-5 SLOAT Switch to ATV±r Continue on LPV/r * Effective minimal C trough = 0.15 mg/L

SLOAT Study: switch LPV/r to ATV+r Median changes (mg/dL) in fasting metabolic parameters from baseline up to Week 48 LPV/r N = 87 ATV total N = 102 p ATV 400 N = 49 p ATV/r 300/100 N = 53 p Triglycerides-5-80< < Total cholesterol < < NS HDL cholesterol-0.5+2NSNS+4NS LDL cholesterol+1 NS-4NS+2NS Glucose+6NS-2NS+1NS Proportion of patients with LDL cholesterol levels within NCEP categories LDL mg/dL21%7% LDL mg/dL9%3% LDL ≥ 190 mg/dL5%1% Metabolic parameters Soriano V, JAC 2008;61:200-5 SLOAT Use of lipid-lowering agents was more frequent in the LPV/r group: 17% vs 5% (p = 0.006)

SLOAT Study: switch LPV/r to ATV+r  Conclusion –For patients with undetectable viraemia on a stable LPV/r-based regimen, replacement of LPV/r by ATV+r may provide: An overall reduction in fasting cholesterol and triglycerides No increased risk of virologic failure Soriano V, JAC 2008;61:200-5 SLOAT