-
Richard H Haubrich,
Sharon A Riddler,
A Gregory DiRienzo,
Lauren Komarow,
William G Powderly, Karin Klingman,
Kevin W Garren,
David L Butcher,
James F Rooney,
David W Haas,
John W Mellors,
Diane V Havlir
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The metabolic effects of initial therapy for HIV-1 infection are important determinants of regimen selection.
Open-label study in 753 subjects randomized equally to efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir(r) plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) vs. the NRTI-sparing regimen of lopinavir/r plus efavirenz. Zidovudine, stavudine, or tenofovir with lamivudine was selected prior to randomization. Metabolic outcomes through 96 weeks were lipoatrophy, defined as at least 20% loss in extremity fat, and fasting serum lipids.
Lipoatrophy by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at week 96 occurred in 32% [95% confidence interval (CI) 25-39%] of subjects in the efavirenz plus two NRTIs arm, 17% (95% CI 12-24) in the lopinavir/r plus two NRTIs arm, and 9% (95% CI 5-14) in the NRTI-sparing arm (P < or = 0.023 for all comparisons). Varying the definition of lipoatrophy (> or =10 to > or =40% fat loss) and correction for baseline risk factors did not affect the significant difference in lipoatrophy between the NRTI-containing regimens. Lipoatrophy was most frequent with stavudine-containing regimens and least frequent with tenofovir-containing regimens (P < 0.001), which were not significantly different from the NRTI-sparing regimen. Total cholesterol increases at week 96 were greatest in the NRTI-sparing arm (median +57 mg/dl) compared with the other two arms (+32-33 mg/dl; P < 0.001). Use of lipid-lowering agents was more common (25 vs. 11-13%) in the NRTI-sparing arm.
Lipoatrophy was more frequent with efavirenz than lopinavir/r when combined with stavudine or zidovudine, and less frequent when either drug was combined with tenofovir. Lipoatrophy was least frequent with the NRTI-sparing regimen, but this benefit was offset by greater cholesterol elevations and the need for lipid-lowering agents.
AIDS (London, England) 06/2009; 23(9):1109-18. · 4.91 Impact Factor
-
Lisa M Demeter,
Hongyu Jiang,
A Lisa Mukherjee,
Gene D Morse,
Robin DiFrancesco,
Robert DiCenzo,
Carrie Dykes,
Prakash Sista,
Lee Bacheler, Karin Klingman,
Alex Rinehart,
Mary Albrecht
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Whether therapeutic drug monitoring of protease inhibitors improves outcomes in HIV-infected patients is controversial. We evaluated this strategy in a randomized, open-label clinical trial, using a normalized inhibitory quotient (NIQ), which incorporates drug exposure and viral drug resistance. NIQs < or = 1 may predict poor outcome and identify patients who could benefit from dose escalation.
Eligible patients had a viral load > or =1000 copies/ml on a failing regimen, and began a new protease inhibitor containing regimen at entry. All FDA-approved protease inhibitors available during the study recruitment (June 2002-May 2006) were allowed. One hundred and eighty-three participants with NIQ < or = 1, on the basis of their week 2 protease inhibitor trough concentration and pre-entry drug resistance test, were randomized at week 4 to standard of care (SOC) or protease inhibitor dose escalation (TDM). The primary endpoint was change in log10 plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration from randomization to 20 weeks later.
Ninety-one patients were randomized to SOC and 92 to TDM. NIQs increased more in the TDM arm compared to SOC (+69 versus +25%, P = 0.01). Despite this, TDM and SOC arms showed no difference in outcome (+0.09 versus +0.02 log10, P = 0.17). In retrospective subgroup analyses, patients with less HIV resistance to their protease inhibitors benefited from TDM (P = 0.002), as did black and Hispanic patients (P = 0.035 and 0.05, respectively). Differences between black and white patients persisted when accounting for protease inhibitor susceptibility.
There was no overall benefit of TDM. In post hoc subgroup analyses, TDM appeared beneficial in black and Hispanic patients, and in patients whose virus retained some susceptibility to the protease inhibitors in their regimen.
AIDS (London, England) 01/2009; 23(3):357-68. · 4.91 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate fosamprenavir/lopinavir (LPV)/ritonavir (RTV), fosamprenavir/RTV, or LPV/RTV in antiretroviral treatment-experienced patients. Lack of drug interaction data prompted a pharmacokinetic substudy to minimize subject risk.
Multi-center, open-label, selectively randomized, steady-state pharmacokinetic study in HIV-infected subjects.
A planned independent interim review occurred after at least eight subjects were randomized to each arm. Subjects received twice daily LPV/RTV 400/100 mg (arm A; n = 8); fosamprenavir/RTV 700/100 mg (arm B; n = 8) or LPV/RTV/fosamprenavir 400/100/700 mg (arm C; n = 17). Plasma samples were collected over 12 h between study weeks 2 and 4. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared based on a one-sided t-test on log-transformed data with a Peto stopping boundary (P < 0.001).
Amprenavir mean area under the curve over 12 h (AUC0-12 h) and concentration at 12 h (C12 h) (microg/ml) were, respectively, 42.7 microg x h/ml (range, 33.1-55.1) and 2.4 microg/ml (range, 1.4-3.2) in arm B and 17.4 microg x h/ml (range, 4.6-41.3) and 0.9 microg/ml (range, 0.2-2.7) in arm C: geometric mean ratio (GMR) arm C:B was 0.36 [99.9% upper confidence boundary (UCB), 0.64] and 0.31 (99.9% h UCB, 0.61), respectively (P < or = 0.0001). Lopinavir AUC0-12 h and C12 h were, respectively, 95.3 microg x h/ml (range, 60.3-119.3) and 6.3 microg/ml (range, 2.2-9.2) in arm A and 54.4 microg x h/ml (range, 23.5-112.2) and 3.0 microg/ml (range, 0.4-7.9) in arm C: GMR arm C:A of 0.52 (99.9% UCB, 0.89) and 0.39 (99.9% UCB, 0.98), respectively (P < or = 0.0008). Ritonavir exposure was not significantly different between arms.
APV and LPV exposures are significantly reduced using LPV/RTV/fosamprenavir, possibly increasing the risk of virologic failure. Consequently, A5143 was closed to enrollment.
AIDS 02/2005; 19(2):145-52. · 6.24 Impact Factor
-
Ann C Collier,
Camlin Tierney,
Gerald F Downey,
Susan H Eshleman,
Angela Kashuba, Karin Klingman,
Emanuel N Vergis,
Gary E Pakes,
James F Rooney,
Alex Rinehart,
John W Mellors
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare activity and safety of a regimen containing lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) + fosamprenavir (FPV) to regimens with LPV/r or FPV + r and to test the hypothesis that a ritonavir-enhanced dual protease inhibitor (PI) regimen has better antiviral activity.
This study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized study. HIV-infected adults with prior PI failure were selectively randomized based on prior PI experience to either LPV/r, FPV + r, or LPV/r + FPV. All patients received tenofovir DF and 1 to 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.
Baseline characteristics were similar across arms. Study enrollment and follow-up were stopped early (N = 56) because pharmacokinetic analyses showed significantly lower LPV and FPV exposures in the dual-PI arm. At Week 24, proportions achieving >1 log10 decline in HIV RNA or <50 copies/mL in the dual-PI versus single-PI arms combined were 75% vs. 61% in intent-to-treat (ITT, p = .17) and 100% vs. 64% in as-treated (AT) analyses (p = .02), respectively. Median CD4+ T cell/mm3 increases were 81 vs. 41 (ITT, p = .4) and 114 vs. 43 (AT, p = .08), respectively. Clinical events and toxicity rates were not different between arms.
The trial was unable to show a difference between dual versus single PIs in ITT analyses but favored dual PIs in AT analyses.
HIV Clinical Trials 9(2):91-102. · 1.64 Impact Factor
