A Multicenter, Open Labeled, Randomized, Phase III Study Comparing Lopinavir/Ritonavir Plus Atazanavir to Lopinavir/Ritonavir Plus Zidovudine and Lamivudine in Naive HIV-1-Infected Patients: 48-Week Analysis of the LORAN Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the study was to compare the metabolic side effects of a nucleoside analogue-containing regimen with a nucleoside analogue-sparing double protease inhibitor regimen. A secondary goal was to test for efficacy of a double-PI regimen. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III clinical trial. SUBJECTS: Adult HIV-1-infected individuals naïve to antiretroviral therapy with viral load above 400 HIV-RNA copies/ml were randomized (1:1) to either 400 mg lopinavir /100 mg ritonavir (LPV/r) BID plus 150 mg lamivudine/300 mg zidovudine (CBV) BID versus LPV/r BID plus 300 mg atazanavir (ATV) QD. Main outcome measure was the virologic failure in both groups, defined as viral load ≥50 copies/ml at week 48. RESULTS: In the CBV/LPV/r-arm, 29 out of 35 patients [(83%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 66.9-92.2%] and 18 out of 40 patients (45%; 95% CI 29.7-61.5%) in the ATV/LPV/r-arm had a HIV-RNA level <50 copies/ml at week 48. The intent-to-treat analysis revealed inferior virologic response in the ATV/LPV/r arm (Chi-Q and Fisher´s Exact Test p<0.001) and resulted in premature termination of the trial. Eleven patients in the ATV/LPV/r-arm discontinued therapy because of virological failure. These failures mostly presented with low level replication (<1,000 copies/ml). Increases in CD4 cell counts was significantly more rapid in the ATV/LPV/r arm (p=0.02), but comparable at week 48. CONCLUSIONS: ATV/LPV/r had less virologic efficacy than the conventional RTI-based regimen and resulted in a high virological failure rate with low level replication.

The influence of HAART on the efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon and ribavirin therapy for the treatment of chronic HCV infection in HIV-positive Individuals.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to investigate the impact of HAART versus no HAART and nucleoside free versus nucleoside containing HAART on the efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon and ribavirin therapy for the treatment of chronic HCV infection in HIV/HCV co-infected patients. In addition a control group of HCV mono-infected patients undergoing anti-HCV therapy was evaluated. METHODS: Multicenter, partially randomized, controlled clinical trial. HIV-negative and -positive patients with chronic HCV infection were treated with pegylated interferon alfa-2a and ribavirin (800 - 1200 mg/day) for 24 - 48 weeks in one of four treatment arms: HIV-negative (A), HIV-positive without HAART (B) and HIV-positive on HAART (C). Patients within arm C were randomized to receive open label either a nucleoside containing (C1) or a nucleoside free HAART (C2). RESULTS: 168 patients were available for analysis. By intent-to-treat analysis similar sustained virological response rates (SVR, negative HCV-RNA 24 weeks after the end of therapy) were observed comparing HIV-negative and -positive patients (54% vs. 54%, p = 1.000). Among HIV-positive patients SVR rates were similar between patients off and on HAART (57% vs. 52%, p = 0.708). Higher SVR rates were observed in patients on a nucleoside free HAART compared to patients on a nucleoside containing HAART, though confounding could not be ruled out and in the intent-to-treat analysis the difference was not statistically significant (64% vs. 46%, p = 0.209). CONCLUSIONS: Similar response rates for HCV therapy can be achieved in HIV-positive and -negative patients. Patients on nucleoside free HAART reached at least equal rates of sustained virological response compared to patients on standard HAART.

Safety of long-term lopinavir plasma-levels in patients with liver disease.

Chronic liver disease is often found in HIV infected patients. LPV as first choice drug is often used over long time periods. TDM as a tool in patients care is important but the knowledge of LPV-plasma-levels in patients with chronic liver disease remain uncertain. With this retrosepective analysis we want to show if there are differences in LPV-plasma-levels between patients with and without chronic liver diseases over a long-time period. LPV-plasma-levels were analysed with an HPLC-based methode. The LPV-plasma-levels over the time course in patients with chronic liver disease (n = 30) and patients without liver disease (n = 38) was evaluated. Liver function tests, CD4-cell count and HI-viral load was also correlated with liver disease. The LPV plasma-levels of n = 450 samples from 30 patients with liver disease (Hepatitis B: n = 17, Hepatitis C: n = 16, Alcoholic liver disease: n = 7) were determined over 18.7 +/- 16,3 months (1 - 48.5 months). A median of 10 samples per patient was eligible (2 - 50 samples). There are no significant differences according to liver disease in LPV-plasma levels (mean Ctrough without: 5917 +/- 4811 ng/ml, mean Ctrough with liver-disease: 6564 +/- 4517 ng/ml, p > 0.05). The intraindividual and interindividual variation of LPV-plasma levels, CD-4 increase, HI-virus suppression and liver tests in patients with and without liver disease is comparable. In this clinical setting no differences in LPV-plasma levels between patients with and without chronic liver disease could be demonstrated. LPV-therapy in patients with chronic liver disease is therefore safe. In patients with impaired liver function TDM is a helpful tool for dose adjustment.