Download
comparison of pi vs pi n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Comparison of PI vs PI PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Comparison of PI vs PI

Comparison of PI vs PI

96 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Comparison of PI vs PI

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

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

  2. KLEAN KLEAN Study: FPV/r BID vs LPV/r BID,in combination with ABC/3TC • Design Randomisation* 1:1 Open-label W48 N = 434 > 18 years ARV-naïve HIV RNA > 1,000 c/mL Any CD4 cell count N = 444 *Randomisation was stratified on HIV RNA < or > 100,000 c/mL • Objective • Non inferiority of FPV/r vs LPV/r at W48: % HIV RNA < 400 c/mL, ITT, TLOVR algorithm (lower margin of the 95% CI for the difference = - 12%, 90% power) Eron J. Lancet 2006;368:467-82

  3. KLEAN KLEAN Study: FPV/r BID vs LPV/r BID,in combination with ABC/3TC Baseline characteristics and patient disposition Substitution of any NRTI for ABC in case of suspected hypersensitivity; no other ARV substitutions allowed Eron J. Lancet 2006;368:467-82

  4. KLEAN KLEAN Study: FPV/r BID vs LPV/r BID,in combination with ABC/3TC HIV RNA < cut-off at week 48 FPV/r LPV/r % • % HIV RNA < 50 c/mL(ITT-E, TLOVR) wassimilar between FPV/r and LPV/r across baselinesubgroups (low or highHIV RNA, low or high CD4) • Median CD4 increaseat W48: 176/mm3 (FPV/r)vs 191/mm3(LPV/r) • Virologic failures at W48 (TLOVR analysis): 26 (FPV/r) vs 30 (LPV/r), including unconfirmed HIV RNA > 400 c/mL on final visit < 400 c/mL < 50 c/mL < 50 c/mL < 50 c/mL 100 Primary efficacy endpoint 89 88 80 73 71 67 67 66 65 60 40 20 N = 434 444 434 444 328 341 0 ITT-E, TLOVR ITT-E, TLOVR ITT, M/D = F Observed analysis, ITT-E 95% CI for the difference = - 4.8; 7.05 ITT-E : ITT-exposed ITT, M/D = F : ITT missing/discontinuation = failure Eron J. Lancet 2006;368:467-82

  5. KLEAN KLEAN Study: FPV/r BID vs LPV/r BID,in combination with ABC/3TC • Resistance data • Genotypic and phenotypic resistance testing was done at virologic failure: • Viral rebound (2 consecutives HIV RNA > 400 c/mL after achieving < 400 c/mL • HIV RNA > 400 c/mL at W24 * No reduced phenotypic susceptibility, no acquisition of major PI mutations Eron J. Lancet 2006;368:467-82

  6. Safety and tolerability: FPV/r vs LPV/r Similar frequency of premature discontinuations for adverse events: 12% vs 10% Similar frequency of clinical adverse events grade 2 to 4 and laboratory abnormalities grade 3 to 4 in both groups Diarrhoea was the most common adverse event, and led to treatment discontinuation in 1% and 2%, respectively Similar frequency of suspected abacavir HSR: 7% vs 5% Similar frequency of grade 3-4 alanine transaminase (ALT): 12% of patients with hepatitis B and/or C co-infection vs 1% in the absence of co-infection Similar changes in fasting lipids at W48, including triglycerides. Use of lipid-lowering agents during the study period: 11% in both groups KLEAN KLEAN Study: FPV/r BID vs LPV/r BID,in combination with ABC/3TC Eron J. Lancet 2006;368:467-82

  7. KLEAN Study: FPV/r BID vs LPV/r BID,in combination with ABC/3TC KLEAN • Summary - Conclusion • In combination with ABC/3TC QD, FPV/r BID was non inferior to LPV/r BID • Virologic and immunologic outcomes at W48 were similar with FPV/r and LPV/r • In patients with high baseline HIV RNA and those with low baseline CD4, similar antiviral potency of the 2 PI/r was evidenced • Tolerability and safety, numbers of treatment discontinuations, and increases in fasting lipids were similar for FPV/r and LPV/r • Confirmed virologic failure was uncommon in both groups with no emergence of major protease inhibitor-associated resistance mutation in either group • In antiretroviral-naïve patients, FPV/r BID provides similar antiviral efficacy, immunologic response, safety and tolerability as LPV/r, both in combination with fixed dose ABC/3TC QD Eron J. Lancet 2006;368:467-82