Advertisement
Fast track — Articles| Volume 372, ISSUE 9639, P646-655, August 23, 2008

Download started.

Ok

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

Published:August 02, 2008DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61081-8

      Summary

      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 μL in the atazanavir/ritonavir group vs 219 cells per μL 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.

      Funding

      Bristol-Myers Squibb.
      This article is available free of charge.
      Simply log in to access the full article, or register for free if you do not yet have a username and password.
      Already registered?
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
      Not yet registered?
      Register for free

      References

      1. 1.
        • Crum NF
        • Riffenburgh RH
        • Wegner S
        • et al.
        Comparisons of causes of death and mortality rates among HIV-infected persons: analysis of the pre-, early, and late HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy) eras.
        J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006; 41: 194-200
      2. 2.
        • Gazzard B
        • Bernard AJ
        • Boffito M
        • et al.
        British HIV Association (BHIVA) guidelines for the treatment of HIV-infected adults with antiretroviral therapy (2006).
        HIV Med. 2006; 7: 487-503
      3. 3.
        • Walmsley S
        Protease inhibitor-based regimens for HIV therapy: safety and efficacy.
        J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007; 45: S5-S13
      4. 4.
        • Hammer SM
        • Saag MS
        • Schechter M
        • et al.
        Treatment for adult HIV infection: 2006 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA panel.
        JAMA. 2006; 296: 827-843
      5. 5.
        • The European AIDS Clinical Society
        EACS guidelines.
        (accessed April 23, 2008).
      6. 6.
        • Department of Health and Human Services, Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents
        Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-infected adults and adolescents.
        (accessed April 24, 2008).
      7. 7.
        • Conway B
        The role of adherence to antiretroviral therapy in the management of HIV infection.
        J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007; 45: S14-S18
      8. 8.
        • Molina JM
        • Journot V
        • Furco A
        • et al.
        Five-year follow up of once-daily therapy with emtricitabine, didanosine and efavirenz (Montana ANRS 091 trial).
        Antivir Ther. 2007; 12: 417-422
      9. 9.
        • Molina JM
        • Journot V
        • Morand-Joubert L
        • et al.
        Simplification therapy with once-daily emtricitabine, didanosine, and efavirenz in HIV-1-infected adults with viral suppression receiving a protease inhibitor-based regimen: a randomized trial.
        J Infect Dis. 2005; 191: 830-839
      10. 10.

        Carr A, Amin J. Reasons for treatment success with initial ART: an analysis of 2,635 participants in 64 randomized, controlled trials and 14 prospective cohorts. 15th Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections; Boston, MA; Feb 3–6, 2008.

      11. 11.
        • Friis-Møller N
        • Reiss P
        • et al.
        • DAD Study Group
        Class of antiretroviral drugs and the risk of myocardial infarction.
        N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 1723-1735
      12. 12.
        • Friis-Møller N
        • Sabin CA
        • Weber R
        • et al.
        Combination antiretroviral therapy and the risk of myocardial infarction.
        N Engl J Med. 2003; 349: 1993-2003
      13. 13.
        • Law MG
        • Friis-Møller N
        • El-Sadr WM
        • et al.
        The use of the Framingham equation to predict myocardial infarctions in HIV-infected patients: comparison with observed events in the D:A:D Study.
        HIV Med. 2006; 7: 218-230
      14. 14.
        • Swainston HT
        • Scott LJ
        Atazanavir: a review of its use in the management of HIV infection.
        Drugs. 2005; 65: 2309-2336
      15. 15.
        • Perez-Elias MJ
        Atazanavir: simplicity and convenience in different scenarios.
        Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2007; 8: 689-700
      16. 16.
        • Robinson BS
        • Riccardi KA
        • Gong YF
        • et al.
        BMS-232632, a highly potent human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor that can be used in combination with other available antiretroviral agents.
        Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000; 44: 2093-2099
      17. 17.
        • Johnson M
        • Grinsztejn B
        • Rodriguez C
        • et al.
        96-week comparison of once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir and twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with multiple virologic failures.
        AIDS. 2006; 20: 711-718
      18. 18.
        • Malan DR
        • Krantz E
        • David N
        • Wirtz V
        • Hammond J
        • McGrath D
        Efficacy and safety of atazanavir, with or without ritonavir, as part of once-daily highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients.
        J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008; 47: 161-167
      19. 19.
        • Jemsek JG
        • Arathoon E
        • Arlotti M
        • et al.
        Body fat and other metabolic effects of atazanavir and efavirenz, each administered in combination with zidovudine plus lamivudine, in antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients.
        Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 42: 273-280
      20. 20.
        • WHO
        Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and adolescents: recommendations for a public health approach. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland2006
      21. 21.
        • Johnson VA
        • Brun-Vezinet F
        • Clotet B
        • et al.
        Update of the drug resistance mutations in HIV-1: 2007.
        Top HIV Med. 2007; 15: 119-125
      22. 22.
        • Kleeberger CA
        • Phair JP
        • Strathdee SA
        • Detels R
        • Kingsley L
        • Jacobson LP
        Determinants of heterogeneous adherence to HIV-antiretroviral therapies in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study.
        J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2001; 26: 82-92
      23. 23.
        • Chesney MA
        • Ickovics JR
        • Chambers DB
        • et al.
        Self-reported adherence to antiretroviral medications among participants in HIV clinical trials: the AACTG adherence instruments.
        AIDS Care. 2000; 12: 255-266
      24. 24.
        • Eron Jr, J
        • Yeni P
        • Gathe Jr, J
        • et al.
        The KLEAN study of fosamprenavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine, for initial treatment of HIV infection over 48 weeks: a randomised non-inferiority trial.
        Lancet. 2006; 368: 476-482
      25. 25.
        • Ortiz R
        • DeJesus E
        • Khanlou H
        • et al.
        Efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients at week 48.
        AIDS. 2008; 22: 1389-1397
      26. 26.

        Smith K, Fine D, Patel P. Efficacy and safety of abacavir/lamivudine combined to tenofovir/emtricitabine in combination with once-daily lopinavir/ritonavir through 48 weeks in the HEAT study. 15th Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections; Boston, MA; Feb 3–6, 2008.

      27. 27.

        Gathe J, da Silva B, Loutfy M. Study M05-730 primary efficacy results at week 48: phase 3, randomized, open-label study of lopinavir/ritonavir tablets once daily vs twice daily, co-administered with tenofovir and emtricitabine in ARV-naive HIV-1-infected subjects. 15th Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections; Boston, MA: Feb 3–6, 2008.

      28. 28.
        • King MS
        • Bernstein BM
        • Walmsley SL
        • et al.
        Baseline HIV-1 RNA level and CD4 cell count predict time to loss of virologic response to nelfinavir, but not lopinavir/ritonavir, in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients.
        J Infect Dis. 2004; 190: 280-284
      29. 29.
        • Hariri S
        • McKenna MT
        Epidemiology of human immunodeficiency virus in the United States.
        Clin Microbiol Rev. 2007; 20: 478-488
      30. 30.
        • Dube MP
        • Lipshultz SE
        • Fichtenbaum CJ
        • Greenberg R
        • Schecter AD
        • Fisher SD
        Effects of HIV infection and antiretroviral therapy on the heart and vasculature.
        Circulation. 2008; 118: e36-e40
      31. 31.
        • Beusterien KM
        • Dziekan K
        • Schrader S
        • et al.
        Patient preferences among third agent HIV medications: a US and German perspective.
        AIDS Care. 2007; 19: 982-988
      32. 32.
        • Vo TT
        • Ledergerber B
        • Keiser O
        • et al.
        Durability and outcome of initial antiretroviral treatments received during 2000–2005 by patients in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.
        J Infect Dis. 2008; 197: 1685-1694
      33. 33.
        • Lodwick RK
        • Smith CJ
        • Youle M
        • et al.
        Stability of antiretroviral regimens in patients with viral suppression.
        AIDS. 2008; 22: 1039-1046

      Linked Articles

      • A king in the CASTLE? Optimum initial HIV protease inhibitor
        • In today's Lancet, Jean-Michel Molina and colleagues describe the 48-week results of the CASTLE study,1 a 96-week, phase III, open-label randomised comparison of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir versus fixed-dose lopinavir–ritonavir, each in combination with the fixed-dose nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) pairing of tenofovir and emtricitabine. During the past decade, potent antiretroviral therapy has substantially decreased morbidity and improved survival in patients infected with HIV, and the goal of HIV infection as a chronic manageable disease seems achievable.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF
      View full text