
HIV Treatment Bulletin - Vol. 7, No. 11/12, November/December 2006
Results were presented in Glasgow by Slim and colleagues from a planned interim analysis of the first 150/337 treatment naïve patients randomised to either saquinavir/r (1000/100mg BID) of lopinavir/r (400/100mg BID) in a prospective openlabel study.
All patients received tenofovir/FTC as background RTIs. The trials is being run in the USA, Canada, Puerto Rico, France and Thailand. The primary endpoint of the study is the percentage of patients with viral load <50 copies/mL at week 48.
The study enrolled 75% men and 25% women. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between both arms and included mean CD4 count 114 cells/mm3 and viral load 5.1 log copies/mL, median age 36 years (range 20-63), 11% HCV coinfected. There is a slight trend in the lopinavir/r arm for patients to be more advanced compared to the saquinavir arm (40% vs 32% with CD4 counts < 50 cells/mm3; and 37% vs 28% with a prior AIDS defining event).
At week 24, there were 5 virologic failures in the saquinavir group (6.8%) versus 2 (2.6%) in the lopinavir group. 69% of saquinavir/r patients compared to 75% of lopinavir/r patients had achieved viral suppression < 50 copies/ml (p=0.43, NS between arms). Results were 74% vs 84% for ITT <400 copies/mL assay. Mean changes in CD4 and viral load were + 279 vs +294 cells/mm3 and -3.2 vs -3.5 logs copies/mL in the saquinavir/r vs lopinaivr/r arms respectively.
Fourteen patients discontinued saquinavir/r (3 due to side effects, 11 for non-safety reasons) vs 13 with lopinavir/r (4 side effects, 9 non-safety). There were no significant differences in Wk 24 efficacy measures.
Fasting lipid parameters were similar at baseline but changes by week 24 favoured the saquinavir arm. Total cholesterol increased above ≥ 5.2 mmol/L (grade 1 or higher) in 7.9% patients on saquinavir vs 25% of patients on lopinavir arm (P<0.01); triglycerides increased to over 4.5 mmol/L (grade 2 or higher) in 1% vs 9% lopinavir/r patients (P<0.05).
Comment
Although this data is interesting, we need to wait for full 48-week analysis in order to see whether some of the small differences between the arms become more significant by the end of the study, and for a full comparison of the safety profile.
The question was also raised in a question after the presentation, about whether interim results should be presented.
As there is little recent data from randomised trials that compares saquinavir/r to other boosted PI-regimens, these results will be important. Results from the MaxCmin2 study, presented as a late breaker at the IAS conference in Paris in July 2003, had a similar design and showed results that benefited lopinavir/r. [2]
This study will show whether new formulations of both drugs have any impact on earlier results (Fortovase was used in the MaxCmin2 trial).
Reference
| 1. | Slim J, Avihingsanon A, Ruxrungtham K et al. [PL2.5] Saquinavir/r (SQV/r) BID vs lopinavir/r (LPV/r) BID plus emtricitabine/tenofovir (FTC/TDF) QD in ARV-naïve HIV-1 infected patients: GEMINI Study . Int Cong Drug Therapy HIV 2006 Nov 12-16;8: (abstract PL2.5). |
| 2. | Youle M, Gerstoft J, Fox Z et al. Final week 48 analysis of a Phase IV, randomized, open-label multi-centre trial to evaluate safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavie (400/100mg BID) versus saquinavir/ritonavie (1000/100mg BID) in adult HIV-1 infection: the MaxCmin2 trial. IAS Conf HIV Pathog Treat 2003 Jul 13-16;2nd: (abstract LB23). |
2006-11-10
IB060711-05
©2006. I-BASE HIV Treatment Bulletin. Permission to reproduce courtesy of HIV i-Base, Third Floor East, Thrale House, 44-46 Southwark Street, London SE1 1UN - T: +44 (0) 20 7407 8488 F: +44 (0) 20 7407 8489
AEGiS is a 501(c)3, not-for-profit, tax-exempt, educational corporation. AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bridgestone/Firestone Charitable Trust, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Elton John AIDS Foundation, John M. Lloyd Foundation, the National Library of Medicine, and donations from users like you. Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2006. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.
AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.
Copyright ©1980, 2006. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content.