[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: CASTLE was a randomized 96-week study that demonstrated that atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) was noninferior to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients. Analyses were carried out among patients who received ATV/r in the CASTLE study to better understand the clinical significance of unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia associated with administration of boosted ATV. Hyperbilirubinemia was defined as total bilirubin (conjugated and unconjugated) elevation greater than 2.5 times the upper limit of normal (grade 3-4). Patients in the ATV/r arm were assessed based on the presence or absence of hyperbilirubinemia through week 96. Analyses included number of confirmed virologic responders (CVR; HIV RNA<50 copies per milliliter), impact of hyperbilirubinemia on symptoms, elevations in liver enzymes, patient quality of life, and medication adherence. Through 96 weeks in the CASTLE study, 44% of patients who received ATV/r had hyperbilirubinemia at any time point, and between 12.5% and 21.6% had hyperbilirubinemia at any single study visit. At 96 weeks, 74% of patients overall and 84% and 69% of patients with and without hyperbilirubinemia, respectively, achieved CVR. Symptoms of jaundice or scleral icterus occurred in 5% of patients overall and in 11% with hyperbilirubinemia and 0% without hyperbilirubinemia. Four percent of patients with and 3% of patients without hyperbilirubinemia had grade 3-4 elevations in liver transaminases. Less than 1% of patients discontinued treatment due to hyperbilirubinemia. There were no differences in quality of life or adherence between patients with or without hyperbilirubinemia. In the CASTLE study, hyperbilirubinemia observed in the ATV/r group did not negatively impact clinical outcomes in HIV-infected patients.
AIDS patient care and STDs 03/2012; 26(5):259-64. · 2.68 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To characterize the pharmacokinetics and inhibitory quotient (IQ) of atazanavir/ritonavir- and lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimens in HIV-infected, treatment-naive patients.
The CASTLE Study was a 96 week randomized study comparing 300 mg of atazanavir once daily with 400 mg of lopinavir twice daily, each with low-dose ritonavir (100 mg) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine in HIV-infected, treatment-naive patients. A subset of patients participated in an intensive pharmacokinetic evaluation of the atazanavir regimen (n = 18) and the lopinavir regimen (n = 21) at week 4. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00272779)
Atazanavir geometric mean (CV%) C(max), C(min) and AUC over the dosing interval were 2897 (46) ng/mL, 526 (57) ng/mL and 28 605 (46) ng · h/mL, respectively, and for lopinavir they were 10 655 (51) ng/mL, 5944 (68) ng/mL and 90 946 (59) ng · h/mL, respectively. The baseline protein binding-adjusted 90% effective concentration (PBA-EC(90)) was 16 (44) ng/mL for atazanavir and 173 (44) ng/mL for lopinavir. The median IQ (min, max), calculated as the ratio of C(min) to individual baseline PBA-EC(90), was 35 (4, 77) for atazanavir and 34 (11, 129) for lopinavir. The C(max) for ritonavir was 46% higher, while AUC(0-24) and C(min) were 16% and 72% lower in the atazanavir regimen compared with the lopinavir regimen. Tenofovir exposures were similar with both treatments.
Atazanavir (300 mg once daily) and lopinavir (400 mg twice daily), each with low-dose ritonavir, achieved similar IQs in HIV-infected, treatment-naive patients. These results are supportive of the main clinical finding of the CASTLE Study, that the atazanavir/ritonavir-based regimen is non-inferior in antiviral efficacy to the lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen in antiretroviral-naive subjects.
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 11/2011; 67(2):465-8. · 5.34 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5202 compared blinded abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) to tenofovir DF/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) with efavirenz (EFV) or atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected treatment-naive patients, stratified by screening HIV RNA (< or ≥ 10(5) copies/mL). Due to higher virologic failure with ABC/3TC in the high HIV RNA stratum, blinded treatment was stopped in this group, but study follow-up continued for all patients.
Primary endpoints were times to virologic failure, regimen modification, and safety event.
In the low HIV RNA stratum, time to virologic failure was similar for ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC with ATV/r (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76, 2.05) or EFV (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.77, 1.96), with significantly shorter times to regimen modification for ABC/3TC with EFV or ATV/r and to safety events with EFV. Prior to stopping blinded treatment in the high stratum, higher virologic failure rates were seen with ABC/3TC with EFV (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.20, 5.05) or ATV/r (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.19, 4.14).
In the low HIV RNA stratum, times to virologic failure for ABC/3TC or TDF/FTC were not different with EFV or ATV/r. In the high stratum, virologic failure rate was significantly higher for ABC/3TC than for TDF/FTC when given with either EFV or ATV/r.
The Journal of Infectious Diseases 10/2011; 204(8):1191-201. · 5.85 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Current guidelines for HIV therapy recommend initiating treatment at a CD4 cell count of 500 cells/mm(3). However, a large proportion of patients with HIV infection begin antiretroviral treatment at a more advanced stage. In the CASTLE study, patients with the most advanced HIV disease (CD4 cell count <50 cells/mm(3)) showed that 78% (45/58) vs. 58% (28/48) of the patients achieved HIV RNA <50 copies/mL in the intent-to-treat analysis at week 96 for atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir, respectively. This current sub-analysis of the CASTLE study describes demographics, virologic failure, discontinuations, safety, tolerability, immunologic response, and clinical outcomes for the following baseline strata: CD4 cell count (cells/mm(3)) <50, 50 to <100, 100 to <200, and ≥200 and HIV RNA (copies/mL) <100,000, 100,000 to <500,000, and ≥500,000. In the lowest CD4 cell count stratum (<50 cells/mm(3)), the proportion of discontinuations was 2-fold greater for the lopinavir/ritonavir arm (33%) than for the atazanavir/ritonavir arm (16%) with a similar rate of virologic failure between the two groups. Also in this CD4 cell count stratum, grades 2-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25% in the atazanavir/ritonavir group and in 43% of lopinavir/ritonavir group, and the rate was also higher than in the higher CD4 cell count strata within the lopinavir/ritonavir treatment group (range: 29-34%). Grades 2-4 treatment-related diarrhea and nausea occurred in more patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir than atazanavir/ritonavir in all strata. The atazanavir/ritonavir group had more grades 2-4 treatment-related jaundice than in the lopinavir/ritonavir group. These results highlight the importance of tolerability of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the patients at greatest risk of morbidity and mortality when using regimens of similar potency.
AIDS Care 07/2011; 23(11):1500-4. · 1.60 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Treatment of HIV/tuberculosis (TB) co-infected patients is complex due to drug-drug interactions for these chronic diseases. This study evaluates an intermittent dosing regimen for rifabutin when it is co-administered with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir.
A randomized, multiple-dose, parallel-group study was conducted in healthy subjects and these subjects received a daily dose of rifabutin 150 mg (n = 15, reference group) or a twice weekly dose with atazanavir 300 mg/ritonavir 100 mg once daily (n = 18, test group). Serial blood samples were collected at steady-state for pharmacokinetic analysis. Modelling and simulation techniques were utilized, integrating data across several healthy subject studies. This study is known as Study AI424-360 and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00646776.
The pharmacokinetic parameters (C(max), AUC(24avg) and C(min)) for rifabutin (149%, 48% and 40% increase, respectively) and 25-O-desacteyl rifabutin (6.77-, 9.90- and 10.45-fold increases, respectively) were both increased when rifabutin was co-administered with atazanavir/ritonavir than rifabutin 150 mg once daily alone. The study was stopped because subjects experienced more severe declines in neutrophil counts when rifabutin was given with atazanavir/ritonavir than alone. A post-hoc simulation analysis showed that when rifabutin 150 mg was given three times weekly with atazanavir/ritonavir, the average daily exposure of rifabutin was comparable to rifabutin 300 mg once daily, a dose necessary for reducing rifamycin resistance in HIV/TB co-infected patients.
The benefits to HIV/TB co-infected patients receiving rifabutin 150 mg three times weekly or every other day may outweigh the risks of neutropenia observed here in non-HIV-infected subjects, provided that patients on combination therapy will be closely monitored for safety and tolerability.
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 06/2011; 66(9):2075-82. · 5.34 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Limited data compare once-daily options for initial therapy for HIV-1.
To compare time to virologic failure; first grade-3 or -4 sign, symptom, or laboratory abnormality (safety); and change or discontinuation of regimen (tolerability) for atazanavir plus ritonavir with efavirenz-containing initial therapy for HIV-1.
A randomized equivalence trial accrued from September 2005 to November 2007, with median follow-up of 138 weeks. Regimens were assigned by using a central computer, stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA level less than 100 000 copies/mL or 100 000 copies/mL or greater; blinding was known only to the site pharmacist. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00118898)
59 AIDS Clinical Trials Group sites in the United States and Puerto Rico.
Open-label atazanavir plus ritonavir or efavirenz, each given with with placebo-controlled abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF)-emtricitabine.
Primary outcomes were time to virologic failure, safety, and tolerability events. Secondary end points included proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA level less than 50 copies/mL, emergence of drug resistance, changes in CD4 cell counts, calculated creatinine clearance, and lipid levels.
463 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive atazanavir plus ritonavir and 465 were assigned to receive efavirenz, both with abacavir-lamivudine; 322 (70%) and 324 (70%), respectively, completed follow-up. The respective numbers of participants in each group who received tenofovir DF-emtricitabine were 465 and 464; 342 (74%) and 343 (74%) completed follow-up. Primary efficacy was similar in the group that received atazanavir plus ritonavir and and the group that received efavirenz and did not differ according to whether abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir DF-emtricitabine was also given. Hazard ratios for time to virologic failure were 1.13 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.56) and 1.01 (CI, 0.70 to 1.46), respectively, although CIs did not meet prespecified criteria for equivalence. The time to safety (P = 0.048) and tolerability (P < 0.001) events was longer in persons given atazanavir plus ritonavir than in those given efavirenz with abacavir-lamivudine but not with tenofovir DF-emtricitabine.
Neither HLA-B*5701 nor resistance testing was the standard of care when A5202 enrolled patients. The third drugs, atazanavir plus ritonavir and efavirenz, were open-label; the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors were prematurely unblinded in the high viral load stratum; and 32% of patients modified or discontinued treatment with their third drug.
Atazanavir plus ritonavir and efavirenz have similar antiviral activity when used with abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir DF-emtricitabine.
National Institutes of Health.
Annals of internal medicine 02/2011; 154(7):445-56. · 13.98 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: A randomized, open-label, multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the therapeutic switch to a single-tablet formulation of efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir DF (EFV/FTC/TDF) among virologically suppressed, HIV-1-infected subjects. Eligible subjects on stable antiretroviral therapy (ART) with HIV-1 RNA less than 200 copies per milliliter for 3 months or more were stratified by prior protease inhibitor (PI)- or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based therapy and randomized (2:1) to EFV/FTC/TDF or to stay on their baseline regimen (SBR). Patient-reported measures were quality of life (QOL; SF-36 [version 2]), treatment adherence (visual analogue scale), preference of medication (POM), perceived ease of the regimen for condition (PERC), and a 20-item HIV symptom index. Overall, 203 subjects were randomized to EFV/FTC/TDF and 97 to SBR. Fifty-three percent of subjects had previously received a PI-based regimen; 47% an NNRTI-based therapy. Throughout the study, SF-36 summary scores did not differ significantly from baseline, regardless of previous ART or treatment allocation. Adherence was 96% or more in both groups at baseline and all subsequent study visits. At study conclusion, the EFV/FTC/TDF regimen was considered easier to follow than prior regimens by 97% and 96% of subjects previously receiving PI-based and NNRTI-based therapies, respectively. Overall, 91% of subjects switched to EFV/FTC/TDF indicated a preference over their prior therapy. Switching to EFV/FTC/TDF was associated with transient worsening/emergence of dizziness and sustained improvements in several other HIV-related symptoms. In conclusion, switching virologically suppressed, HIV-1-infected subjects from PI-based or NNRTI-based regimens to EFV/FTC/TDF was associated with maintained QOL and treatment adherence, and improved ease of use and treatment satisfaction.
AIDS patient care and STDs 02/2010; 24(2):87-96. · 2.68 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The use of fixed-dose combination nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) with a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor is recommended as initial therapy in patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but which NRTI combination has greater efficacy and safety is not known.
In a randomized, blinded equivalence study involving 1858 eligible patients, we compared four once-daily antiretroviral regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection: abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF)-emtricitabine plus efavirenz or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir. The primary efficacy end point was the time from randomization to virologic failure (defined as a confirmed HIV-1 RNA level > or = 1000 copies per milliliter at or after 16 weeks and before 24 weeks, or > or = 200 copies per milliliter at or after 24 weeks).
A scheduled interim review by an independent data and safety monitoring board showed significant differences in virologic efficacy, according to the NRTI combination, among patients with screening HIV-1 RNA levels of 100,000 copies per milliliter or more. At a median follow-up of 60 weeks, among the 797 patients with screening HIV-1 RNA levels of 100,000 copies per milliliter or more, the time to virologic failure was significantly shorter in the abacavir-lamivudine group than in the tenofovir DF-emtricitabine group (hazard ratio, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.46 to 3.72; P<0.001), with 57 virologic failures (14%) in the abacavir-lamivudine group versus 26 (7%) in the tenofovir DF-emtricitabine group. The time to the first adverse event was also shorter in the abacavir-lamivudine group (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the study groups in the change from the baseline CD4 cell count at week 48.
In patients with screening HIV-1 RNA levels of 100,000 copies per milliliter or more, the times to virologic failure and the first adverse event were both significantly shorter in patients randomly assigned to abacavir-lamivudine than in those assigned to tenofovir DF-emtricitabine. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00118898.)
New England Journal of Medicine 12/2009; 361(23):2230-40. · 51.66 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To evaluate a simplification strategy for HIV-1-infected patients virologically suppressed on antiretroviral therapy (ART) by switching to a single-tablet regimen consisting of efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (EFV/FTC/TDF).
: Prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter study.
Patients on stable ART with HIV-1 RNA <200 copies per milliliter for > or = 3 months were stratified by prior nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based or protease inhibitor-based therapy and randomized (2:1) to simplify treatment to EFV/FTC/TDF or to stay on their baseline regimen (SBR). Efficacy and safety assessments were performed at baseline and at weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48. Additional patient-reported outcomes included the following: adherence by visual analog scale, quality of life by SF-36 (v2) survey, HIV Symptom Index, and the Preference of Medication and Perceived Ease of the Regimen for Condition questionnaires.
Three hundred patients (EFV/FTC/TDF 203, SBR 97) were evaluated (prior protease inhibitor-based ART, 53%; nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based ART, 47%). The arms were well balanced at baseline with 88% males, 29% blacks, and a mean age of 43 years; CD4 was 540 cells per cubic millimeter, 96% had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter, and 88% were on their first ART regimen. Through 48 weeks, 89% vs. 88% in the EFV/FTC/TDF vs. SBR arms, respectively, maintained HIV-1 RNA <200 copies per milliliter by time to loss of virologic response algorithm (intent to treat, noncompleters = failures) with the difference (95% confidence interval) between arms of 1.1% (-6.7% to 8.8%), indicating noninferiority of EFV/FTC/TDF vs. SBR. Similarly, maintenance of HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter by time to loss of virologic response algorithm was 87% vs. 85% for EFV/FTC/TDF vs. SBR, respectively [difference (95% confidence interval) 2.6% (-5.9% to 11.1%)]. Discontinuation rates were similar (EFV/FTC/TDF 11%, SBR 12%); more discontinuations for adverse events occurred in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm vs. SBR (5% vs. 1%), most commonly for nervous system symptoms. More patients withdrew consent in the SBR arm vs. EFV/FTC/TDF (7% vs. 2%). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) remained unchanged over 48 weeks in both arms (median change < 1 mL.min.1.73 m). A decrease in fasting triglycerides was observed at 48 weeks in the EFV/FTC/TDF vs. SBR arm (-20 vs. -3.0 mg/dL; P = 0.035). Adherence of > or = 96% was reported by visual analog scale in both arms at baseline and at all study visits.
Simplification to EFV/FTC/TDF maintained high and comparable rates of virologic suppression vs. SBR through 48 weeks.
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Nucleoside and ritonavir (RTV) toxicities have led to increased interest in nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and RTV-sparing antiretroviral regimens. SPARTAN was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, noncomparative pilot study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and resistance profile of an investigational NRTI- and RTV-sparing regimen (experimental atazanavir [ATV] dose 300 mg bid + raltegravir [RAL] 400 mg bid [ATV+RAL]). The reference regimen consisted of ATV 300 mg/RTV 100 mg qd + tenofovir (TDF) 300 mg/emtricitabine (FTC) 200 mg qd (ATV/r+TDF/FTC).
Treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients with HIV-RNA ≥5,000 copies/mL were randomized 2:1 to receive twice-daily ATV+RAL (n=63) or once-daily ATV/r+TDF/FTC (n=31). Efficacy at 24 weeks was determined by confirmed virologic response (CVR; HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL) with noncom-pleters counted as failures based on all treated subjects.
The proportion of patients with CVR HIV RNA <50 copies/mL at week 24 was 74.6% (47/63) in the ATV+RAL arm and 63.3% (19/30) in the ATV/r+TDF/FTC arm. Systemic exposure to ATV in the ATV+RAL regimen was higher than historically observed with ATV/r+TDF/ FTC. Incidence of Grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia was higher on ATV+RAL (20.6%; 13/63) than on ATV/r+TDF/FTC (0%). The criteria for resistance testing (virologic failure [VF]: HIV-RNA ≥400 copies/mL) was met in 6/63 patients on ATV+RAL, and 1/30 on ATV/r+TDF/FTC; 4 VFs on ATV+RAL developed RAL resistance.
ATV+RAL, an experimental NRTI- and RTV-sparing regimen, achieved virologic suppression rates comparable to current standards of care for treatment-naïve patients. The overall profile did not appear optimal for further clinical development given its development of resistance to RAL and higher rates of hyperbilirubinemia with twice-daily ATV compared with ATV/RTV.
HIV Clinical Trials 13(3):119-30. · 2.30 Impact Factor