8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Once-daily maraviroc versus tenofovir/emtricitabine each combined with darunavir/ritonavir for initial HIV-1 treatment

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of maraviroc along with darunavir/ritonavir, all once daily, for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 infected individuals.

          Design:

          MODERN was a multicentre, double-blind, noninferiority, phase III study in HIV-1 infected, antiretroviral-naive adults with plasma HIV-1 RNA at least 1000 copies/ml and no evidence of reduced susceptibility to study drugs.

          Methods:

          At screening, participants were randomized 1 : 1 to undergo either genotypic or phenotypic tropism testing. Participants with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 were randomized 1 : 1 to receive maraviroc 150 mg once daily or tenofovir/emtricitabine once daily each with darunavir/ritonavir once daily for 96 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml (Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm) at Week 48. A substudy evaluated bone mineral density, body fat distribution and serum bone turnover markers.

          Results:

          Seven hundred and ninety-seven participants were dosed (maraviroc, n = 396; tenofovir/emtricitabine, n = 401). The Data Monitoring Committee recommended early study termination due to inferior efficacy in the maraviroc group. At Week 48, the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml was 77.3% for maraviroc and 86.8% for tenofovir/emtricitabine [difference of −9.54% (95% confidence interval: −14.83 to −4.24)]. More maraviroc participants discontinued for lack of efficacy, which was not associated with non-R5 tropism or resistance. Discontinuations for adverse events, Category C events, Grade 3/4 adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were similar between groups.

          Conclusion:

          A once-daily nucleos(t)ide-sparing two-drug regimen of maraviroc and darunavir/ritonavir was inferior to a three-drug regimen of tenofovir/emtricitabine and darunavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-naive adults.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

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

          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. 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. 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. 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].). Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Adverse effects of reverse transcriptase inhibitors: mitochondrial toxicity as common pathway.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Lopinavir/ritonavir combined with raltegravir or tenofovir/emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive subjects: 96-week results of the PROGRESS study.

              Alternative combinations of antiretrovirals (ARVs) are desired to increase treatment options for HIV-infected patients. PROGRESS was a randomized, open-label, 96-week pilot study comparing a regimen of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 400/100 mg twice daily in combination with either raltegravir (RAL) 400 mg twice daily or tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) 300/200 mg once daily in ARV-naive adults. A total of 206 subjects were randomized and treated (LPV/r+RAL, N=101; LPV/r+TDF/FTC, N=105). Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups. At 96 weeks, 66.3% of subjects receiving LPV/r+RAL and 68.6% of subjects receiving LPV/r+TDF/FTC were responders (plasma HIV-1 RNA levels<40 copies/ml) by the FDA time to loss of virologic response (FDA-TLOVR) algorithm (p=0.767). Mean CD4(+) T cell increases through 96 weeks were similar between treatment groups (LPV/r+RAL=281 cells/mm(3), LPV/r+TDF/FTC=296 cells/mm(3), p=0.598). Safety and tolerability were generally similar between groups. The LPV/r+RAL regimen resulted in greater increases in peripheral fat, but not trunk fat, compared with LPV/r+TDF/FTC. There was a statistically significantly greater mean reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline to week 96 in the LPV/r+TDF/FTC group compared with the LPV/r+RAL group (-7.33 ml/min vs. -1.43 ml/min; p=0.035). The LPV/r+TDF/FTC group had a statistically significant (p<0.001) mean percent decrease from baseline to week 96 in bone mineral density, which was significantly different from the mean percent change in the LPV/r+RAL group (-2.48% vs. +0.68%, p<0.001). These efficacy and safety observations support further evaluation of the LPV/r+RAL regimen.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                AIDS
                AIDS
                AIDS
                AIDS (London, England)
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                0269-9370
                1473-5571
                15 May 2016
                03 May 2016
                : 30
                : 8
                : 1229-1238
                Affiliations
                [a ]ICH-Study Center, Hamburg, Germany
                [b ]ViiV Healthcare, Brentford, UK
                [c ]St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [d ]University of Alabama at Birmingham, Alabama
                [e ]Pfizer Inc., New York, New York, USA
                [f ]Ospedale San Raffaele, Divisione di Malattie Infettive, Milan, Italy
                [g ]ViiV Healthcare, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
                [h ]Pfizer Inc., Sandwich, UK
                [i ]Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
                [j ]ViiV Healthcare, London
                [k ]The Research Network, Sandwich, UK
                [l ]Pfizer Inc., Groton, Connecticut, USA.
                Author notes
                Correspondence to Jayvant Heera, Pfizer Inc., Groton, CT, 06340, USA. Tel: +1 860 441 5134; e-mail: Jayvant.heera@ 123456pfizer.com
                Article
                10.1097/QAD.0000000000001058
                4856180
                26854810
                4f0d44d2-d203-4c3b-809d-a0b6e329a4a1
                Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

                History
                : 29 July 2015
                : 17 November 2015
                : 18 November 2015
                Categories
                Clinical Science
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                darunavir,emtricitabine,hiv-1,maraviroc,nucleos(t)ide-sparing regimen,tenofovir,treatment-naive

                Comments

                Comment on this article