NRTI-sparing  SPARTAN  PROGRESS  NEAT001/ANRS 143  MODERN.

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 PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257.
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.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
Phase 2 of new ARVs BMS , prodrug of BMS (attachment inhibitor) - AI Study.
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 ATV/r + RAL  HARNESS Study. ATV/r 300/100 mg qd + TDF/FTC N = 37 N = 72 ATV/r 300/100 mg qd + RAL 400 mg bid  Design Randomisation 2: 1 Open-label.
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.
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*
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
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 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.
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy  ATARITMO  Swedish Study  ACTG A5201  OREY  MODAt Study.
Switch to ATV-containing regimen  ARIES Study  INDUMA Study  ASSURE Study.
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.
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.
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.
TURQUOISE-I OBV/PTV/r + DSV + RBV Randomisation* 1 : 1 Open-label years HCV genotype 1 HCV RNA ≥ 10,000 IU/ml Naïve or pre-treated with PEG-IFN +
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.
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.
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 INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257.
NRTI-sparing  SPARTAN  PROGRESS  RADAR  NEAT001/ANRS 143  A  VEMAN  MODERN.
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
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
Comparison of INSTI vs PI
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
ARV-trial.com Switch to ATV/r + 3TC ATLAS-M Study.
Switch to DTG + 3TC ASPIRE Study.
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
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
Switch to ATV- or ATV/r-containing regimen
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Comparison of INSTI vs PI
Switch to ATV/r monotherapy
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
ARV-trial.com Switch to ATV/r + RAL HARNESS Study 1.
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
Comparison of PI vs PI ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089
Presentation transcript:

NRTI-sparing  SPARTAN  PROGRESS  NEAT001/ANRS 143  MODERN

Kozal MJ. HIV Clin Trials 2012;13;  Design  Efficacy endpoint –Primary : HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL at week 24 by mITT (confirmed virologic response (CVR) with non completers counted as failure) –Other assessments : CVR with non completers counted as missing, virologic response-observed ATV 300 mg BID + RAL 400 mg BID ATV/r mg QD + TDF/FTC Randomisation* 2 : 1 Open-label > 18 years ARV-naïve HIV RNA > 5,000 c/mL Any CD4 cell count No primary resistance in RT or protease *Randomisation was stratified by HIV RNA ( 100,000 c/mL) N = 30 N = 63 W24W96 SPARTAN SPARTAN Study: ATV + RAL BID vs ATV/r + TDF/FTC QD

ATV + RAL, N = 63ATV/r + TDF/FTC, N = 30 Female13%7% HIV RNA (log 10 c/mL), median CD4 cell count (/mm 3 ), mean+SE 256 ± ± 25 Discontinuation by W246 (9.5%)3 (10.0%) Withdrew consentN = 20 JaundiceN = 20 Other adverse eventsN = 2 (1 arrhythmia, 1 cancer)0 Lost to follow-up0N = 1 Protocol violation0N = 2 Baseline characteristics and patient disposition HIV RNA < 50 c/mL ATV + RALATV/r + TDF/FTC CVR, NC=F74.6%63.3% CVR, NC=M81.0%70.4% Virologic response, observed78.8%76.0% Mean CD4/mm 3 increase Response rate at week 24 Kozal MJ. HIV Clin Trials 2012;13; SPARTAN SPARTAN Study: ATV + RAL BID vs ATV/r + TDF/FTC QD

ATV + RALATV/r + TDF/FTC Virologic failure (HIV RNA > 50 c/mL)11 (17%)8 (27%) Meeting criteria for genotype testing (HIV RNA > 400 c/mL)61 Resistance mutations4/50 INSTI mutations4*- ATV mutations00  Resistance data * N = 1 with Q148R, N = 1 with Q148Q/R + T97T/A, 2 with N155H ATV + RALATV/r + TDF/FTC Grade 2-4 treatment-related adverse events19 (30%)10 (33%) Hyperbilirubinemia11 (17.5%)3 (10%) Diarrhoea02 (7%) Nausea1 (2%)1 (3%) Grade 3-4 adverse events16 (25%)6 (20%) Grade 3-4 total bilirubin elevation38 (60%)14 (47%) Adverse events leading to discontinuation 4 (6.3%) Arrhytmia, Jaundice (2), Testicular cancer 1 (3.3%) Diarrhoea  Adverse events through week 24 Kozal MJ. HIV Clin Trials 2012;13; SPARTAN SPARTAN Study: ATV + RAL BID vs ATV/r + TDF/FTC QD

 Conclusion –ATV + RAL BID achieved virologic response rate comparable to current standard of care for treatment-naïve subjects –ATV + RAL was associated with Emergence of resistance to RAL in case of virologic failure Higher rates of severe hyperbilirubinemia compared with ATV/r 300/100 mg QD –Could be related to higher ATV exposure No new or unexpected safety signals –Study was early terminated and regimen of ATV 300 mg BID + RAL 400 mg BID considered not to be optimal for further clinical development Kozal MJ. HIV Clin Trials 2012;13; SPARTAN