1 / 5

Comparison of PI vs PI

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 M02-418 M05-730 A5073 LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2 NRTI GARDEL ATV/r vs FPV/r ALERT FPV/r vs LPV/r KLEAN SQV/r vs LPV/r GEMINI ATV/r vs LPV/r CASTLE DRV/r vs LPV/r ARTEMIS.

beatrice-wallace
Télécharger la présentation

Comparison of PI vs PI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of PI vs PI • ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089 • LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TCMONARK • LPV/r QD vs BIDM02-418M05-730A5073 • LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2 NRTI GARDEL • ATV/r vs FPV/r ALERT • FPV/r vs LPV/r KLEAN • SQV/r vs LPV/r GEMINI • ATV/r vs LPV/r CASTLE • DRV/r vs LPV/r ARTEMIS

  2. MONARK Study: LPV/r BID monotherapy vs LPV/r BID + ZDV/3TC Design MONARK Randomisation Open-label W96 N = 84 LPV/r 400/100 mg BID Adults > 18 years ARV-naïve HIV RNA < 100,000 c/mL CD4 cell count > 100/mm3 N = 54 LPV/r 400/100 mg BID + ZDV/3TC BID LPV/r soft-gel capsule was used • Objective • Primary endpoint: HIV RNA < 400 c/mL at W24 and < 50 c/mL at W48 • No power calculation due to limited sample size, and pilot nature of the study Delfraissy JF. AIDS 2008;22:385-93

  3. MONARK Study: LPV/r BID monotherapy vs LPV/r BID + ZDV/3TC MONARK Baseline characteristics and patient disposition Delfraissy JF. AIDS 2008;22:385-93

  4. MONARK Study: LPV/r BID monotherapy vs LPV/r BID + ZDV/3TC MONARK Efficacy (HIV RNA) at weeks 24 and 48 Primary endpoint : < 400 c/mL at W24 and < 50 c/mL at W48 < 400 c/mL at W24 < 50 c/mL at W48 < 400 c/mL at W24 and < 50 c/mL at W48 % p = 0.02 LPV/r (N = 83) LPV/r + ZDV/3TC (N = 53) 98 100 80 77 78 80 75 75 67 64 60 40 66 41 0 On treatment analysis ITT, missing and intensification = failure Median CD4 increase at W48: 151/mm3 (LPV/r monotherapy) vs 159/mm3 (LPV/r + ZDV/3TC) (p = 0.65) Delfraissy JF. AIDS 2008;22:385-93

  5. Resistance, safety and tolerability 24/136 patients qualified for resistance testing (rebound of HIV RNA > 500 c/mL): 21/83 in the LPV/r monotherapy group and 3/53 in the LPV/r + ZDV/3TC group PI-associated resistance mutations emerged in 3/21 patients on LPV/r monotherapy (L76V, M46I) Serious adverse event: 12% LPV/r mono vs 8% LPV/r + ZDV/3TC Similar frequency of clinical adverse events (mainly diarrhoea) and laboratory abnormalities (transaminases elevations) of at least moderate severity in the 2 groups Conclusion In antiretroviral-naïve patients, LPV/r monotherapy demonstrates lower rates of virologic suppression as compared with LPV/r + ZDV/3TC LPV/r monotherapy should not be offered for first-line antiretroviral therapy MONARK Study: LPV/r BID monotherapy vs LPV/r BID + ZDV/3TC MONARK Delfraissy JF. AIDS 2008;22:385-93

More Related