Anthony Rodgers

Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Use of raltegravir with optimum background therapy is effective and well tolerated in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. We compared the safety and efficacy of raltegravir with efavirenz as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive patients. METHODS Patients from 67 study centres on five continents were enrolled between Sept 14, 2006, and June 5, 2008. Eligible patients were infected with HIV-1, had viral RNA (vRNA) concentration of more than 5000 copies per mL, and no baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine. Patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio (double-blind) to receive 400 mg oral raltegravir twice daily or 600 mg oral efavirenz once daily, in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of a vRNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The primary analysis was per protocol. The margin of non-inferiority was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00369941. FINDINGS 566 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment, of whom 281 received raltegravir, 282 received efavirenz, and three were never treated. At baseline, 297 (53%) patients had more than 100 000 vRNA copies per mL and 267 (47%) had CD4 counts of 200 cells per microL or less. The main analysis (with non-completion counted as failure) showed that 86.1% (n=241 patients) of the raltegravir group and 81.9% (n=230) of the efavirenz group achieved the primary endpoint (difference 4.2%, 95% CI -1.9 to 10.3). The time to achieve such viral suppression was shorter for patients on raltegravir than on efavirenz (log-rank test p<0.0001). Significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in patients on raltegravir (n=124 [44.1%]) than those on efavirenz (n=217 [77.0%]; difference -32.8%, 95% CI -40.2 to -25.0, p<0.0001). Serious drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in each drug group. INTERPRETATION Raltegravir-based combination treatment had rapid and potent antiretroviral activity, which was non-inferior to that of efavirenz at week 48. Raltegravir is a well tolerated alternative to efavirenz as part of a combination regimen against HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. FUNDING Merck.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients With Breast Cancer After Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

PURPOSE This is the first study in which the NK(1)-receptor antagonist, aprepitant (APR), was evaluated for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible breast cancer patients were naive to emetogenic chemotherapy and treated with cyclophosphamide +/- doxorubicin or epirubicin. Patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant regimen (day 1, APR 125 mg, ondansetron (OND) 8 mg, and dexamethasone 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, APR 80 qd) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] or a control regimen (day 1, OND 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, OND 8 mg bid). Data on nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were collected with a self-report diary. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients with complete response, defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy, during 120 hours after initiation of chemotherapy in cycle 1. The secondary end point was the proportion of patients with an average item score higher than 6 of 7 on the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire. RESULTS Of 866 patients randomized, 857 patients (99%) were assessable. Overall complete response was greater with the aprepitant regimen than with the control regimen (50.8% v 42.5%; P = .015). More patients in the aprepitant group reported minimal or no impact of CINV on daily life (63.5% v 55.6%; P = .019). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving both an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.

Switch to a raltegravir-based regimen versus continuation of a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen in stable HIV-infected patients with suppressed viraemia (SWITCHMRK 1 and 2): two multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND To reduce lipid abnormalities and other side-effects associated with antiretroviral regimens containing lopinavir-ritonavir, patients might want to switch one or more components of their regimen. We compared substitution of raltegravir for lopinavir-ritonavir with continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with stable viral suppression on lopinavir-ritonavir-based combination therapy. METHODS The SWITCHMRK 1 and 2 studies were multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, randomised controlled trials. HIV-infected patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had documented viral RNA (vRNA) concentration below the limit of assay quantification for at least 3 months while on a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen. 707 eligible patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to switch from lopinavir-ritonavir to raltegravir (400 mg twice daily; n=353) or to remain on lopinavir-ritonavir (two 200 mg/50 mg tablets twice daily; n=354), while continuing background therapy consisting of at least two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Primary endpoints were the mean percentage change in serum lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12; the proportion of patients with vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL at week 24 (with all treated patients who did not complete the study counted as failures) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12% for each study; and the frequency of adverse events up to 24 weeks. Analyses were done according to protocol. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00443703 and NCT00443729. FINDINGS 702 patients received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the efficacy and safety analyses for the combined trials (raltegravir, n=350; lopinavir-ritonavir, n=352). Percentage changes in lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater (p<0.0001) in the raltegravir group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group in each study, yielding combined results for total cholesterol -12.6%vs 1.0%, non-HDL cholesterol -15.0%vs 2.6%, and triglycerides -42.2%vs 6.2%. At week 24, 293 (84.4%, 95% CI 80.2-88.1) of 347 patients in the raltegravir group had vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL compared with 319 (90.6%, 87.1-93.5) of 352 patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (treatment difference -6.2%, -11.2 to -1.3). Clinical and laboratory adverse events occurred at similar frequencies in the treatment groups. There were no serious drug-related adverse events or deaths. The only drug-related clinical adverse event of moderate to severe intensity reported in 1% or more of either treatment group was diarrhoea, which occurred in ten patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (3%) and no patients in the raltegravir group. The studies were terminated at week 24 because of lower than expected virological efficacy in the raltegravir group compared with the lopinavir-ritonavir group. INTERPRETATION Although switching to raltegravir was associated with greater reductions in serum lipid concentrations than was continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir, efficacy results did not establish non-inferiority of raltegravir to lopinavir-ritonavir. FUNDING Merck.

Raltegravir versus efavirenz regimens in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 96-week efficacy, durability, subgroup, safety, and metabolic analyses

Background:We analyzed the 96-week results in the overall population and in prespecified subgroups from the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naive HIV-infected patients. Methods:Eligible patients with HIV-1 RNA (vRNA) levels >5000 copies per milliliter and without baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine were randomized in a double-blind noninferiority study to receive raltegravir or efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine. Results:At week 96 counting noncompleters as failures, 81% versus 79% achieved vRNA levels <50 copies per milliliter in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Δ (95% confidence interval) = 2% (−4 to 9), noninferiority P < 0.001]. Mean change in baseline CD4 count was 240 and 225 cells per cubic millimeter in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Δ (95% confidence interval) = 15 (−13 to 42)]. Treatment effects were consistent across prespecified baseline demographic and prognostic subgroups. Fewer drug-related clinical adverse events (47% versus 78%; P < 0.001) occurred in raltegravir than efavirenz recipients. Both regimens had modest effects on serum lipids and glucose levels and on body fat composition. Conclusions:When combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive patients, raltegravir exhibited durable antiretroviral activity that was noninferior to the efficacy of efavirenz through 96 weeks of therapy. Subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the overall findings. Both regimens were well tolerated.

Raltegravir once daily or twice daily in previously untreated patients with HIV-1: a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Twice-daily raltegravir with once-daily tenofovir-emtricitabine is an effective initial antiretroviral regimen for patients with HIV-1. On the basis of pharmacokinetic data suggesting efficacy of once-daily raltegravir and because adherence is often improved with once-daily dosing, we aimed to compare these dosing schedules. METHODS In our international, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority study, we enrolled antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV RNA loads of more than 5000 copies per mL and no baseline resistance to tenofovir or emtricitabine at 83 centres worldwide. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) by use of a computer-generated sequence to receive raltegravir once daily (two 400 mg tablets taken together every 24 h), or twice daily (one 400 mg tablet every 12 h), both in combination with once-daily co-formulated tenofovir 300 mg plus emtricitabine 150 mg. The primary outcome was virological response at 48 weeks (viral RNA loads <50 copies per mL) in patients who received at least one dose of study drug, counting non-completers as failure. We assessed non-inferiority in terms of the proportion of patients in both treatment groups who achieved the primary outcome, with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00745823. FINDINGS From Oct 15, 2008, to Nov 2, 2009, we randomly allocated 775 patients, of whom 382 (99%) of 386 patients in the once-daily group and 388 (99%) of 389 in the twice-daily group received at least one dose of study drug. At baseline, 304 (39%) of 770 treated patients had viral loads of more than 100,000 copies per mL and 188 (24%) had CD4 cell counts of fewer than 200 cells per μL. 318 (83%) of 382 patients in the once-daily group had virological response compared with 343 (89%) of 386 in the twice-daily group (difference -5·7%, 95% CI -10·7 to -0·83; p=0·044). Serious adverse events were reported in 26 (7%) of 382 once-daily recipients and 40 (10%) of 388 twice-daily recipients, and adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in four (1%) patients in each group. INTERPRETATION Despite high response rates with both regimens, once-daily raltegravir cannot be recommended in place of twice-daily dosing. FUNDING Merck.

Long-term Treatment With Raltegravir or Efavirenz Combined With Tenofovir/Emtricitabine for Treatment-Naive Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1–Infected Patients: 156-Week Results From STARTMRK

BACKGROUND We compared 3 years of antiretroviral therapy with raltegravir or efavirenz as part of a combination regimen in the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naive patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). METHODS Eligible patients with HIV-1 RNA (vRNA) levels >5000 copies/mL and without baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine were randomized in a double-blind, noninferiority study to receive raltegravir or efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine. Outcomes included viral suppression, adverse events, and changes from baseline metabolic parameters. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans were obtained on a convenience sample of patients at prespecified time points to assess changes in body fat composition. RESULTS At week 156 counting noncompleters as failures, 212 (75.4%) of 281 versus 192 (68.1%) of 282 had vRNA levels <50 copies/mL in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Δ (95% CI) = 7.3% (-0.2, 14.7), noninferiority P < .001]. Mean changes from baseline CD4 count were 332 and 295 cells/mm³ in the raltegravir and efavirenz arms, respectively [Δ (95% CI) = 37 (4, 69)]. Consistent virologic and immunologic efficacy was maintained across prespecified demographic and baseline prognostic subgroups for both treatment groups. Fewer drug-related clinical adverse events (49% vs 80%; P < .001) occurred in raltegravir than efavirenz recipients, with discontinuations due to adverse events in 5% and 7%, respectively. Elevations in fasting lipid levels (including LDL- and HDL-cholesterol) were consistently lower in the raltegravir than efavirenz group (P < .005). Fat gain was 19% in 25 raltegravir recipients and 31% in 32 efavirenz recipients at week 156. CONCLUSIONS When combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive patients, raltegravir produced durable viral suppression and immune restoration that was at least equivalent to efavirenz through 156 weeks of therapy. Both regimens were well tolerated, but raltegravir was associated with fewer drug-related clinical adverse events and smaller elevations in lipid levels. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00369941.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Emesis over Multiple Cycles of Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

An aprepitant (APR) regimen was evaluated for prevention of nausea and emesis due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) over multiple cycles.

Efficacy of Rizatriptan 10 mg administered early in a migraine attack.

Objective.—To determine if administration of rizatriptan 10 mg is superior to placebo for the early treatment of acute migraine, while the pain is mild.

Rizatriptan for the acute treatment of ICHD-II proposed menstrual migraine: two prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies

These are the first prospective studies to use criteria for menstrual migraine proposed in the 2004 revision of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II) to examine the efficacy of rizatriptan for treatment of a menstrual attack. Two identical protocols (MM1 and MM2) were randomized, parallel, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies. Adult women with ICHD-II menstrual migraine were assigned to either rizatriptan 10-mg tablet or placebo in a 2 : 1 ratio. Patients treated a single menstrual migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. The primary end-point was 2-h pain relief and the secondary end-point was 24-h sustained pain relief. A total of 707 patients (MM1 357, MM2 350) treated a menstrual migraine attack. The percentage of patients reporting 2-h pain relief was significantly greater for rizatriptan than for placebo (MM1 70% vs. 53%, MM2 73% vs. 50%), as was the percentage of patients reporting 24-h sustained pain relief (MM1 46% vs. 33%; MM2 46% vs. 33%). Rizatriptan 10 mg was effective for the treatment of ICHD-II menstrual migraine, as measured by 2-h pain relief and 24-h sustained pain relief.

Symptoms of cutaneous sensitivity pre‐treatment and post‐treatment: results from the rizatriptan TAME studies

The presence of cutaneous allodynia may predict response to triptans. Identical randomized double-blind studies were conducted comparing the efficacy of rizatriptan 10 mg or placebo administered within 1 h of headache onset, while pain was mild. The primary endpoint was freedom from pain at 2 h. Presence of symptoms suggesting cutaneous sensitivity (SCS) at baseline and at 2 h post-treatment was recorded. Before treatment, 29% of rizatriptan patients and 22% of placebo patients reported SCS. At 2 h, the percentage of patients with SCS was significantly decreased with rizatriptan. The presence of SCS pre-treatment was not predictive of response to rizatriptan. Most patients with SCS at 2 h were non-responders. Early treatment with rizatriptan significantly reduced the percentage of patients with SCS at 2 h. The presence of SCS at baseline did not predict pain-free response, but presence of SCS at 2 h correlated with lack of a 2-h pain-free response.