Donnie McGrath

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

BACKGROUND 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. METHODS 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. FINDINGS 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. INTERPRETATION 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.

Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir compared with twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine, for management of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 96-week efficacy and safety results of the CASTLE study.

Background:Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir demonstrated similar antiviral efficacy to twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir over 48 weeks, with less gastrointestinal disturbance and a better lipid profile, in treatment-naive patients. Methods:International, multicenter, open-label, 96-week noninferiority randomized trial of atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily vs lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily, each in combination with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily, in antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL at 48 weeks. Results through 96 weeks are reported. Results:Of 883 patients enrolled, 440 were randomized to atazanavir/ritonavir and 443 to lopinavir/ritonavir. At week 96, more patients receiving atazanavir/ritonavir achieved HIV RNA <50 copies/mL (74% vs 68%, P < 0.05) in the intent-to-treat analysis. On both regimens, 7% of subjects were virologic failures by 96 weeks. Bilirubin-associated disorders were greater in patients taking atazanavir/ritonavir. Treatment-related gastrointestinal adverse events were greater in patients taking lopinavir/ritonavir. Mean changes from baseline in fasting total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides at week 96 were significantly higher with lopinavir/ritonavir (P < 0.0001). Conclusions:Noninferiority of atazanavir/ritonavir to lopinavir/ritonavir was confirmed at 96 weeks. Atazanavir/ritonavir had a better lipid profile and fewer gastrointestinal adverse events than lopinavir/ritonavir.

Efficacy and Safety of Atazanavir, With or Without Ritonavir, as Part of Once-Daily Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Regimens in Antiretroviral-Naive Patients

Background:Atazanavir (ATV), the first once-daily protease inhibitor approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infection, is recommended for use in antiretroviral (ARV) treatment-naive and -experienced patients. Study AI424-089 was a prospective, randomized, open-label, 96-week study comparing 2 ATV-based treatment regimens in ARV-naive HIV-infected patients. Methods:Adults with HIV RNA levels ≥2000 copies/mL were randomized (1:1) to once-daily ATV at a dose of 300 mg with ritonavir at a dose of 100 mg (ATV300/RTV) or ATV at a dose of 400 mg (ATV400); both regimens included lamivudine and an investigational extended-release formulation of stavudine. The primary endpoint for this noninferiority study was the proportion of patients (response rate) with an HIV RNA load <400 copies/mL at week 48. Results:Response rates at week 48 were 86% and 85% on the ATV300/RTV and ATV400 regimens, respectively (difference estimate [95% confidence interval] = 1.5 [−8.2 to 11.1]). There were 3 and 10 patients with virologic failure in the ATV300/RTV and ATV400 groups, respectively. One patient (ATV400) developed phenotypic resistance to ATV associated with an I50L substitution. Adverse event-related discontinuations were 8% among ATV300/RTV-treated patients and <1% among ATV400-treated patients. Plasma lipid elevations were low with both regimens. Both regimens were well tolerated. Conclusions:These findings demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the ATV300/RTV regimen and confirm the safety and efficacy of ATV400 in an ARV-naive patient population.

Prevalence and Clinical Significance of HIV Drug Resistance Mutations by Ultra-Deep Sequencing in Antiretroviral-Naive Subjects in the CASTLE Study

Background CASTLE compared the efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir with lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir-emtricitabine in ARV-naïve subjects from 5 continents. Objectives Determine the baseline rate and clinical significance of TDR mutations using ultra-deep sequencing (UDS) in ARV-naïve subjects in CASTLE. Methods A case control study was performed on baseline samples for all 53 subjects with virologic failures (VF) at Week 48 and 95 subjects with virologic successes (VS) randomly selected and matched by CD4 count and viral load. UDS was performed using 454 Life Sciences/Roche technology. Results Of 148 samples, 141 had successful UDS (86 subtype B, 55 non-B subtypes). Overall, 30.5% of subjects had a TDR mutation at baseline; 15.6% only had TDR(s) at <20% of the viral population. There was no difference in the rate of TDRs by B (30.2%) or non-B subtypes (30.9%). VF (51) and VS (90) had similar rates of any TDRs (25.5% vs. 33.3%), NNRTI TDRs (11.1% vs.11.8%) and NRTI TDRs (24.4% vs. 25.5%). Of 9 (6.4%) subjects with M184V/I (7 at <20% levels), 6 experienced VF. 16 (11.3%) subjects had multiple TAMs, and 7 experienced VF. 3 (2.1%) subjects had both multiple TAMs+M184V, and all experienced VF. Of 14 (9.9%) subjects with PI TDRs (11 at <20% levels): only 1 experienced virologic failure. The majority of PI TDRs were found in isolation (e.g. 46I) at <20% levels, and had low resistance algorithm scores. Conclusion Among a representative sample of ARV-naïve subjects in CASTLE, TDR mutations were common (30.5%); B and non-B subtypes had similar rates of TDRs. Subjects with multiple PI TDRs were infrequent. Overall, TDRs did not affect virologic response for subjects on a boosted PI by week 48; however, a small subset of subjects with extensive NRTI backbone TDR patterns experienced virologic failure.

A nucleoside- and ritonavir-sparing regimen containing atazanavir plus raltegravir in antiretroviral treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients: SPARTAN study results.

Abstract Background: 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). Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Safety and exposure of once-daily ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in HIV-infected pregnant women.

There are limited antiretroviral options for use in the treatment of HIV infection during pregnancy. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety, efficacy and appropriate dosing regimen for ritonavir (RTV)‐boosted atazanavir in HIV‐1‐infected pregnant women.

Changes in Body Composition with Ritonavir-Boosted and Unboosted Atazanavir Treatment in Combination with Lamivudine and Stavudine: A 96-Week Randomized, Controlled Study

This 96-week, open-label, randomized study assessed changes in body composition in treatment-naive patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 who were treated with either atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, in combination with stavudine and lamivudine. Both treatment groups had similar increases in trunk fat, but patients treated with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir had a significantly lower incidence of lipoatrophy.

Comparative gender analysis of the efficacy and safety of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir at 96 weeks in the CASTLE study

Objectives To examine whether the overall results of the CASTLE study pertain to both genders, we analysed the efficacy and safety of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in 277 female and 606 male patients in the open-label, multinational trial over 96 weeks. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00272779. Methods Treatment-naive patients aged ≥18 years with HIV-1 RNA ≥5000 copies/mL were randomized to receive either atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily or lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily, with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily. Results At week 96, confirmed virological response rates (HIV RNA <50 copies/mL; intent-to-treat analysis) were higher in women and men receiving atazanavir/ritonavir than those receiving lopinavir/ritonavir and lower in women than men in both treatment arms (67% of women and 77% of men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 63% of women and 71% of men on lopinavir/ritonavir). These differences were not observed in the on-treatment analysis. Mean change in CD4 cell count from baseline to week 96 was 265 cells/mm3 for women and 269 cells/mm3 for men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 298 cells/mm3 for women and 286 cells/mm3 for men on lopinavir/ritonavir. Discontinuation rates were higher in women than men in each treatment arm (22% of women and 15% of men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 29% of women and 18% of men on lopinavir/ritonavir). In women and men, grade 2–4 nausea and diarrhoea were more frequent in the lopinavir/ritonavir group; jaundice and hyperbilirubinaemia occurred more frequently in the atazanavir/ritonavir group. Conclusions Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir is an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option for women and men with HIV-1 infection. The sex-based differences in response may be due to higher discontinuation rates in women.

Clinical Significance of Hyperbilirubinemia Among HIV-1–Infected Patients Treated with Atazanavir/Ritonavir Through 96 Weeks in the CASTLE Study

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.

96-Week efficacy and safety of atazanavir, with and without ritonavir, in a HAART regimen in treatment-naive patients.

This study assesses virologic response, safety, tolerability, and changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in antiretroviral (ARV)-naive patients treated with 2 atazanavir (ATV)-based regimens over 96 weeks. Treatment-naive adult patients (n = 200) were randomized to receive either ATV 300 mg with ritonavir (RTV) 100 mg (ATV300/r, n = 95) or ATV 400 mg (ATV400; n = 105). At week 96, 75% of ATV300/r-treated and 70% of ATV400-treated patients achieved viral loads <400 copies/mL (difference estimate [95% confidence interval, CI] = 5.1 [-7.1 to 17.2]). Five and 20 patients, respectively, experienced virologic failure. Adverse event-related discontinuations occurred among 8% receiving ATV300/r and 3% receiving ATV400. Plasma lipid elevations were generally low. Both regimens were well tolerated and associated with sustained improvements in HRQoL. These findings demonstrate long-term efficacy, tolerability, and safety of both ATV300/r and ATV400 in ARV-naive patients through 96 weeks with improvements in HRQoL.