Initial viral decay to assess the relative antiretroviral potency of protease inhibitor-sparing, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing, and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing regimens for first-line therapy of HIV infection.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of sex and initial antiretroviral regimen on decay of HIV-RNA and virologic outcome. METHODS: We conducted a viral dynamics substudy of A5142, a trial comparing lopinavir (LPV)/ritonavir with efavirenz (LPV/EFV) versus LPV and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) (LPV) versus EFV and two NRTI (EFV) in antiretroviral (ARV)-naive individuals. HIV-RNA was measured at days 2, 10, and 14 in the substudy and at weeks 1, 4, and 8 in A5142 participants. Two-phase viral decay was estimated in the substudy with biexponential mixed-effects modeling and compared using Wilcoxon tests. Week 1 HIV-RNA change was assessed as a predictor of virologic failure (HIV-RNA above 50 or 200  copies/ml) at weeks 24-96 using logistic regression. RESULTS: Sixty-eight individuals were enrolled in the substudy (median HIV-RNA 4.9 log(10)  copies/ml). Median rates of phase 1 viral decay by treatment were 0.61(EFV/LPV), 0.53(LPV), and 0.63(EFV) per day. Phase 1 decay was significantly faster for EFV than LPV (P = 0.023); other comparisons were not significant (P > 0.11). Viral decay did not differ by sex (P = 0.10). Week 1 HIV-RNA change, calculated in 571 participants of A5142, was greater for the EFV (median -1.47 log(10)  copies/ml) than either the LPV/EFV or LPV groups (-1.21 and -1.16 log(10 ) copies/ml, respectively; P < 0.001). Week 1 HIV-RNA change was associated with virologic failure above 50  copies/ ml at weeks 24 and 48 (P < 0.018), but not above 200  copies/ml at these time points or for any value at week 96. CONCLUSION: Phase 1 decay was faster for EFV than LPV or LPV/EFV. Week 1 HIV-RNA change predicted virologic outcome up to week 48, but not at week 96.

Economic modeling of the combined effects of HIV-disease, cholesterol and lipoatrophy based on ACTG 5142 trial data.

BACKGROUND: This study examines the cost and consequences of initiating an ARV regimen including Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or Efavirenz (EFV), using data from a recent clinical trial in a previously published model of HIV-disease. METHODS: We populated the Markov model of HIV-disease with data from ACTG 5142 study to estimate the economic outcomes of starting ARV therapy with a PI-containing regimen as compared to an NNRTI-containing regimen, given their virologic and immunologic efficacy and effects on cholesterol and lipoatrophy. CNS toxicities and GI tolerability were not included in the model because of their transient nature or low cost remedies, and therefore lack of economic impact. CD4+ T-cell counts and the HIV-1 RNA (viral load) values from the study were used to assign a specific health state (HS) to each patient for each quarter year. The resulting frequencies used as "raw" data directly into the model obviate the reliance on statistical tests, and allow the model to reflect actual patient behavior in the clinical trial. An HS just below the last observed HS was used to replace a missing value. RESULTS: The modeled estimates (undiscounted) for the LPV/r-based regimen resulted in 1.41 quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) gained over a lifetime compared to the EFV-based regimen. The LPV/r-based regimen incurred $7,458 (1.8%) greater cost over a lifetime due to differences in drug costs and survival. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio using the discounted cost and QALYs was $88,829/QALY. Most of the higher costs accrue before the 7th year of treatment and were offset by subsequent savings. The estimates are highly sensitive to the effect of lipoatrophy on Health-related Quality of Life (HRQOL), but not to the effect of cholesterol levels. CONCLUSIONS: The cost effectiveness of ARV regimens may be strongly affected by enduring AEs, such as lipoatrophy. It is important to consider specific AE effects from all drugs in a regimen when ARVs are compared. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00050895http://[ClinicalTrials.gov]).

Bioavailability of generic ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir tablet products in a dog model.

In this study, we explored the bioavailability in dogs and chemical potency of generic ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir tablet products manufactured by various pharmaceutical companies. Chemical potency of the products was examined by HPLC quantitation of ritonavir and lopinavir. Using a dog model, we determined point estimates for C(max) and AUC of ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir for eight generic products compared to Abbott's Norvir capsule and Kaletra tablet. Chemical potencies ranged from 79.0% to 104.6%. Point estimates for AUC in the generic tablet products ranged from 0.01 to 1.11, indicating that the relative bioavailability of these formulations was in the range of 1-111% compared to the branded products. This study showed significant variability in bioavailability in a dog model amongst generic tablet products containing the protease inhibitors ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir. The chemical potency of the generic products was not indicative of the plasma levels of ritonavir or lopinavir that were achieved. These results reinforce the need for human bioequivalence testing of generic products containing ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir to assure that efficacy in patients is not compromised prior to these products being made available to patients. Procurement policies of funding agencies should require such quality assurance processes.

Metabolic outcomes in a randomized trial of nucleoside, nonnucleoside and protease inhibitor-sparing regimens for initial HIV treatment.

BACKGROUND: The metabolic effects of initial therapy for HIV-1 infection are important determinants of regimen selection. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Class-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: The use of either efavirenz or lopinavir-ritonavir plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) is recommended for initial therapy for patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but which of the two regimens has greater efficacy is not known. The alternative regimen of lopinavir-ritonavir plus efavirenz may prevent toxic effects associated with NRTIs. METHODS: In an open-label study, we compared three regimens for initial therapy: efavirenz plus two NRTIs (efavirenz group), lopinavir-ritonavir plus two NRTIs (lopinavir-ritonavir group), and lopinavir-ritonavir plus efavirenz (NRTI-sparing group). We randomly assigned 757 patients with a median CD4 count of 191 cells per cubic millimeter and a median HIV-1 RNA level of 4.8 log10 copies per milliliter to the three groups. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 112 weeks, the time to virologic failure was longer in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (P=0.006) but was not significantly different in the NRTI-sparing group from the time in either of the other two groups. At week 96, the proportion of patients with fewer than 50 copies of plasma HIV-1 RNA per milliliter was 89% in the efavirenz group, 77% in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 83% in the NRTI-sparing group (P=0.003 for the comparison between the efavirenz group and the lopinavir-ritonavir group). The groups did not differ significantly in the time to discontinuation because of toxic effects. At virologic failure, antiretroviral resistance mutations were more frequent in the NRTI-sparing group than in the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Virologic failure was less likely in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group. The virologic efficacy of the NRTI-sparing regimen was similar to that of the efavirenz regimen but was more likely to be associated with drug resistance. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00050895 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Randomized open-label trial of two simplified, class-sparing regimens following a first suppressive three or four-drug regimen.

OBJECTIVES: Complex antiretroviral regimens can be associated with increased toxicity and poor adherence. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of switching to two simplified, class-sparing antiretroviral regimens. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label study in 236 patients with virologic suppression who were taking a three- or four-drug protease inhibitor or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor regimen for > or = 18 months. Patients received lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 533 mg/133 mg twice daily + efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg once daily or EFV + two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI). Primary study endpoint was time to first virologic failure (VF, confirmed HIV-1 RNA > 200 copies/ml) or discontinuation because of study drug-related toxicity. RESULTS: After 2.1 years of follow up, patients receiving LPV/r + EFV discontinued treatment at a greater rate than patients receiving EFV + NRTI (P < 0.001). Twenty-one patients developed VF (14 receiving LPV/r + EFV and seven receiving EFV + NRTI) and 26 discontinued because of a study drug-related toxicity (20 receiving LPV/r + EFV and six receiving EFV + NRTI). Time to VF or study drug related-toxicity discontinuation was significantly shorter for LPV/r + EFV than EFV + NRTIs (P = 0.0015). A significantly higher risk of drug-related toxicity occurred with LPV/r + EFV, mainly for increased triglycerides (P = 0021). A trend toward a higher VF rate occurred with LPV/r + EFV in an intent-to-treat and as-treated analyses (P = 0.088 and P = 0.063 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to EFV + NRTI resulted in better outcomes, fewer drug-related toxicity discontinuations and a trend to fewer virologic failures compared to switching to LPV/r + EFV.