Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine, for management of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 48 week efficacy and safety results of the CASTLE study.
ABSTRACT Atazanavir/ritonavir is as effective as lopinavir/ritonavir, with a more favourable lipid profile and less gastrointestinal toxicity, in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. We compared these two combinations directly in treatment-naive patients.
In this open-label, international non-inferiority study, 883 antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients were randomly assigned to receive atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily (n=440) or lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily (n=443), in combination with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily. Randomisation was done with a computer-generated centralised randomisation schedule and was stratified by baseline levels of HIV RNA (viral load) and geographic region. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with viral load less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The main efficacy analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00272779.
At week 48, 343 (78%) of 440 patients receiving atazanavir/ritonavir and 338 (76%) of 443 patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir had achieved a viral load of less than 50 copies per mL (difference 1.7%, 95% CI -3.8 to 7.1). Mean increases from baseline in CD4 cell count were similar (203 cells per muL in the atazanavir/ritonavir group vs 219 cells per muL in the lopinavir/ritonavir group). 25 (6%) patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group and 26 (6%) in the lopinavir/ritonavir group were virological failures by week 48. Only two patients, both in the atazanavir/ritonavir group, had non-polymorphic protease inhibitor resistance mutations emerge on treatment, which conferred phenotypic resistance to atazanavir in one patient. Serious adverse events were noted in 51 (12%) of 441 patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group and in 42 (10%) of 437 patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir group. Fewer patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group than in the lopinavir/ritonavir group experienced grade 2-4 treatment-related diarrhoea (10 [2%] vs 50 [11%]) and nausea (17 [4%] vs 33 [8%]). Grade 2-4 jaundice was seen in 16 (4%) of 441 patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group versus none of 437 patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir group; grade 3-4 increases in total bilirubin were seen in 146 (34%) of 435 patients on atazanavir/ritonavir and in one (<1%) of 431 patients on lopinavir/ritonavir.
In treatment-naive patients, atazanavir/ritonavir once-daily demonstrated similar antiviral efficacy to lopinavir/ritonavir twice-daily, with less gastrointestinal toxicity but with a higher rate of hyperbilirubinaemia.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The D:A:D (Data Collection on Adverse Events of Anti-HIV Drugs) Study, a prospective observational study on a cohort of 23 468 patients with HIV infection, indicated that the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) increased by 26% per year of exposure to combination antiretroviral treatment (CART). However, it remains unclear whether the observed increase in the rate of MI in this population can be attributed to changes in conventional cardiovascular risk factors. To compare the number of MIs observed among participants in the D:A:D Study with the number predicted by assuming that conventional cardiovascular risk equations apply to patients with HIV infection. The Framingham equation, a conventional cardiovascular risk algorithm, was applied to individual patient data in the D:A:D Study to predict rates of MI by duration of CART. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of model and data assumptions. Predictions were extrapolated to provide 10-year risk estimates, and various scenarios were modelled to assess the expected effect of different interventions. In patients receiving CART, the observed numbers of MIs during D:A:D follow up were similar to or somewhat higher than predicted numbers: 9 observed vs 5.5 events predicted, 14 vs 9.8, 22 vs 14.9, 31 vs 23.2 and 47 vs 37.0 for<1 year, 1-2 years, 2-3 years, 3-4 years and >4 years CART exposure, respectively. In patients who had not received CART, the observed number of MIs was fewer than predicted (3 observed vs 7.6 predicted). Nine per cent of the study population have a predicted 10-year risk of MI above 10%, a level usually associated with initiation of intervention on risk factors. A consistent feature of all analyses was that observed and predicted rates of MI increased in a parallel fashion with increased CART duration, suggesting that the observed increase in risk of MI may at least in part be explained by CART-induced changes in conventional risk factors. These findings provide guidance in terms of choosing lifestyle or therapeutic interventions to decrease those risk factors in much the same way as in persons without HIV infection.HIV Medicine 05/2006; 7(4):218-30. · 3.16 Impact Factor
- HIV Medicine 12/2006; 7(8):487-503. · 3.16 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: HIV protease inhibitors (PI) have undergone the most significant evolution when considering the different families of antiretrovirals. Marketed in 2003, atazanavir (ATV) is the first azapeptide PI, and is considered a member of the second generation of PIs. Important characteristics make ATV different from other drugs in the same family of antiretrovirals. It is administered once daily, either as two capsules (200 mg) or boosted with ritonavir (100 mg) two capsules (150 mg) or one capsule (300 mg). No elevations in serum levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or triglycerides have been observed with unboosted ATV. Although some increases in these levels are found with boosted ATV, these were lower when compared with other PIs. Elevation in unconjugated bilirubin levels, which is usually not dose limiting, is the most frequent adverse event. Naive patients receiving ATV boosted with ritonavir do not develop PI mutations at failure, whereas unboosted ATV in the same scenario induces the I50L mutation, which does not confer cross-resistance to other PIs. The best scenario for unboosted ATV is simplification. In PI treatment-experienced patients with PI mutations, susceptibility to ATV is usually reduced, so it should be administered with ritonavir. As with other PIs, careful attention must be given to pharmacokinetic drug interactions; the coadministration of certain commonly used drugs among HIV-infected patients, tenofovir and members of the proton pump inhibitor family, leads to significantly lower plasma levels of ATV.Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 05/2007; 8(5):689-700. · 2.86 Impact Factor