Article

Efficacy and Safety of Lersivirine (UK-453,061) Versus Efavirenz in Antiretroviral Treatment-Naive HIV-1-Infected Patients: Week 48 Primary Analysis Results From an Ongoing, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase IIb Trial.

*Cantonal Hospital, St. Gallen, Switzerland †Pfizer Inc, New London, CT ‡Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, United Kingdom §Provincial Infectious Hospital of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland ‖Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia ¶Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Cape Town, South Africa #Universita Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy **Pfizer Inc, New York, NY ††ViiV Healthcare, Research Triangle Park, NC ‡‡Pfizer Global Research and Development, Sandwich Laboratories, Kent, United Kingdom. Julie Mori is now with Retroscreen Virology Ltd, Queen Mary BioEnterprises Innovation Centre, London, United Kingdom.
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (Impact Factor: 4.39). 02/2013; 62(2):171-179. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31827a2ba2.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE:: A 96-week clinical study was planned to estimate the antiviral activity and safety of lersivirine in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients. METHODS:: This ongoing international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, Phase IIb exploratory study evaluates the efficacy and safety of 2 doses of lersivirine or 1 of efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive lersivirine (500 or 750 mg once daily) or efavirenz (600 mg once daily), each administered with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (300 mg/200 mg, once daily). The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter (missing/discontinuation = failure) at week 48. RESULTS:: For the 193 patients in the study, baseline mean plasma HIV-1 RNA was 4.7 log10 copies per milliliter, and median CD4 cell count was 312 cells per cubic millimeter. At week 48, the percentage of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter was 78.5% (51/65), 78.5% (51/65), and 85.7% (54/63) in the lersivirine 500 mg, 750 mg, and efavirenz groups, respectively. CD4 cell count changes from baseline were similar across groups. Virologic failure occurred in 7 patients (11%) in each of the lersivirine groups and 3 patients (5%) in the efavirenz group. The pattern of lersivirine resistance was distinct from other nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Overall incidences of all-causality treatment-related or grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) or AE-related discontinuations were lower with lersivirine than with efavirenz, and serious AEs occurred at similar rates across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS:: Both lersivirine doses showed broadly comparable efficacy to efavirenz over 48 weeks in treatment-naive patients, with different AE profiles from efavirenz.

0 Followers
 · 
91 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The resounding success of combination antiretroviral efficacy for both treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients - with 70-90% viral suppression rates in recent studies - has made registration trials for new agents challenging. With the inevitable specter of drug resistance, new agents must have a pathway to approval. The Forum for Collaborative HIV Research obtained input from concerned stakeholders including industry, clinical sciences, community advocacy, and regulatory sciences (Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency) to discuss how safety and efficacy of new agents could be demonstrated. Recognizing the shortfalls of superiority or noninferiority trials in this environment, a new trial design for treatment-experienced patients, minimizing the risk for drug resistance but allowing full assessment of safety, was proposed. The antiviral efficacy of an active investigational drug would be assessed by comparison to placebo as an add-on to a failing regimen in a short, 10-14-day study followed by institution of an optimized background regimen (OBR) in both arms with investigational drug given to all patients. The follow-on stage would assess dose response, safety, durability of initial response, and development of resistance. Additionally, a second safety trial could be conducted comparing patients randomized to the investigational agent with a new OBR to those on a new OBR and placebo. Finally, approval decisions could consider other long-term safety endpoints. Exposing treatment-naïve patients to investigational agents remains a controversial issue; stakeholders have different interpretations of risk-benefit for trials in this population that necessitate careful consideration before initiating trials in them.
    AIDS (London, England) 02/2012; 26(8):899-907. DOI:10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283519371 · 6.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We systematically reviewed studies of the virological efficacy of the 4 new tenofovir (TDF)-containing regimens recommended for initial antiretroviral (ARV) therapy in the 2010 World Health Organization ARV Treatment Guidelines. Thirty-three studies assessed the efficacy of 1 or more TDF-containing regimens: TDF/lamivudine (3TC)/nevirapine (NVP) (n = 3), TDF/ emtricitabine (FTC)/NVP (n = 9), TDF/3TC/efavirenz (EFV) (n = 6), and TDF/FTC/EFV (n = 19). TDF/3TC/NVP was the least well-studied and appeared the least efficacious of the 4 regimens. In 2 comparative studies, TDF/3TC/NVP was associated with significantly more virological failure than AZT/3TC/NVP; a third study was terminated prematurely because of early virological failure. TDF/FTC/NVP was either equivalent or inferior to its comparator arms. TDF/3TC/EFV was equivalent to its comparator arms. TDF/FTC/EFV was equivalent or superior to its comparator arms. Possible explanations for these findings include the greater antiviral activity of EFV versus NVP and longer intracellular half-life of FTC-triphosphate versus 3TC-triphosphate. Further study of TDF/3TC/NVP is required before it is widely deployed for initial ARV therapy.
    Clinical Infectious Diseases 03/2012; 54(6):862-75. DOI:10.1093/cid/cir1034 · 9.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lersivirine is a next-generation non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with a unique resistance profile that exhibits potent antiretroviral activity against wild-type human immunodeficiency virus and clinically relevant NNRTI-resistant strains. Results from in vitro and in vivo investigations suggest that lersivirine is a cytochrome P450 (CYP3A4) inducer that is metabolized by CYP3A4 and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) 2B7. In order to formally assess the effects of lersivirine on CYP3A4 metabolism and/or glucuronidation, we performed studies aimed at investigating the effects of lersivirine co-administration on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of midazolam, ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel. Two drug-drug interaction studies were performed. Healthy subjects were co-administered (1) single dose midazolam, a prototypical CYP3A4 substrate, followed by 14 days of lersivirine twice daily with single dose midazolam on the final day of lersivirine dosing or (2) 10 days of once-daily (QD) lersivirine and QD oral contraceptives (OCs; ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel), substrates for CYP3A4, UGT2B7, and/or P-glycoprotein. The effects of co-administration on the PK parameters of midazolam and OCs were assessed. At clinically relevant lersivirine doses (500-1,000 mg total daily dose), the mean plasma exposure of midazolam was reduced in a dose-dependent manner by 20-36 %. Co-administration of lersivirine 1,000 mg QD with OCs had minor PK effects, increasing ethinylestradiol exposure by 10 % and reducing levonorgestrel exposure by 13 %. These data further support previous observations that lersivirine is a weak CYP3A4 inducer, a weak inhibitor of glucuronidation, and a P-glycoprotein inhibitor. In both studies, lersivirine appeared to have a good safety and tolerability profile.
    European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 04/2012; 68(11):1567-72. DOI:10.1007/s00228-012-1287-5 · 2.70 Impact Factor