A nucleoside- and ritonavir-sparing regimen containing atazanavir plus raltegravir in antiretroviral treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients: SPARTAN study results.

BACKGROUND: Nucleoside and ritonavir (RTV) toxicities have led to increased interest in nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and RTV-sparing antiretroviral regimens. SPARTAN was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, noncomparative pilot study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and resistance profile of an investigational NRTI- and RTV-sparing regimen (experimental atazanavir [ATV] dose 300 mg bid + raltegravir [RAL] 400 mg bid [ATV+RAL]). The reference regimen consisted of ATV 300 mg/RTV 100 mg qd + tenofovir (TDF) 300 mg/emtricitabine (FTC) 200 mg qd (ATV/r+TDF/FTC). METHODS: Treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients with HIV-RNA ≥5,000 copies/mL were randomized 2:1 to receive twice-daily ATV+RAL (n=63) or once-daily ATV/r+TDF/FTC (n=31). Efficacy at 24 weeks was determined by confirmed virologic response (CVR; HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL) with noncom-pleters counted as failures based on all treated subjects. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with CVR HIV RNA <50 copies/mL at week 24 was 74.6% (47/63) in the ATV+RAL arm and 63.3% (19/30) in the ATV/r+TDF/FTC arm. Systemic exposure to ATV in the ATV+RAL regimen was higher than historically observed with ATV/r+TDF/ FTC. Incidence of Grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia was higher on ATV+RAL (20.6%; 13/63) than on ATV/r+TDF/FTC (0%). The criteria for resistance testing (virologic failure [VF]: HIV-RNA ≥400 copies/mL) was met in 6/63 patients on ATV+RAL, and 1/30 on ATV/r+TDF/FTC; 4 VFs on ATV+RAL developed RAL resistance. CONCLUSIONS: ATV+RAL, an experimental NRTI- and RTV-sparing regimen, achieved virologic suppression rates comparable to current standards of care for treatment-naïve patients. The overall profile did not appear optimal for further clinical development given its development of resistance to RAL and higher rates of hyperbilirubinemia with twice-daily ATV compared with ATV/RTV.

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.

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

Dose-ranging, randomized, clinical trial of atazanavir with lamivudine and stavudine in antiretroviral-naive subjects: 48-week results.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficiency and safety of atazanavir and nelfinavir in antiretroviral-naive patients. DESIGN: Randomization to atazanavir 400 mg or 600 mg once daily; nelfinavir 1250 mg twice a day, plus lamivudine and stavudine. METHODS: A blinded (to the atazanavir dose), 48-week trial in patients with HIV-1 RNA > or = 2000 copies/ml, CD4 cell count > or = 100 x 10(6) cells/l. Primary end-point: change in HIV-1 RNA from baseline at 48 weeks. Secondary end-point: subjects with HIV-1 RNA < 400, and < 50 copies/ml, CD4 cell count changes, adverse events. RESULTS: The 467 randomized subjects had comparable baseline characteristics across treatments. With atazanavir 400 mg, 600 mg and nelfinavir, respectively, mean changes in HIV-1 RNA (log10 copies/ml) from baseline to 48 weeks were -2.51, -2.58, -2.31; HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/ml [intent-to-treat population (ITT), non-completion = failure (NC = F)], 64%, 67%, 53%; HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/ml (ITT NC = F), 35%, 36%, 34%; mean CD4 cell count increased comparably at 48 weeks (234 x 10(6), 243 x 10(6), 211 x 10(6) cells/l). Adverse events were similar across treatments with the exception of diarrhea (more frequent with nelfinavir) and jaundice (more frequent with atazanavir). Mean changes from baseline to 48 weeks were: fasting low density lipoprotein cholesterol, +5.2%, +7.1% and +23.2% (at 56 weeks) and fasting triglycerides (48 weeks), +7.2%, +7.6% and +49.5%, in the atazanavir 400 mg, 600 mg, and nelfinavir groups, respectively (P < 0.01, atazanavir versus nelfinavir). CONCLUSIONS: Atazanavir is a potent, safe, well tolerated, and effective once-daily protease inhibitor with low pill burden (two capsules/day). Lipid changes with atazanavir were significantly less than with nelfinavir, however, clinical significance of these finding in terms of decreased cardiovascular risk is unknown.

Atazanavir--a once-daily HIV protease inhibitor that does not cause dyslipidemia in newly treated patients: results from two randomized clinical trials.

Protease inhibitor (PI) treatment can result in dyslipidemia in a significant proportion of patients. Atazanavir (ATV) is a once-daily PI that has not been associated with clinically relevant increases in total cholesterol (TC), fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), or fasting triglyceride (TG) concentrations. The objectives of this paper were to evaluate lipid profiles in untreated patients, and investigate the frequency and severity of dyslipidemia in the same individuals after treatment with ATV or nelfinavir (NFV) for 48 weeks. Two multinational, randomized, active-controlled, blinded trials compared the safety and efficacy of ATV and NFV in combination with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in antiretroviral (ARV)-naive patients. Serum lipid concentrations were analyzed in patients who had available measurements both at baseline and at week 48. Patients who had missing data at either time point were not included. Lipid levels remained within baseline ranges at week 48 with ATV treatment, whereas clinically relevant elevations in TC, fasting LDL-C, and fasting TG concentrations occurred with NFV treatment. Mean changes from pre-treatment baseline in fasting LDL-C ranged from -6 percent to +6 percent in the ATV-treatment groups, and from +27 percent to +31 percent in the NFV-treatment groups. After 48 weeks, there was a substantive increase in the proportion of NFV-treated patients who would be recommended for lipid-lowering treatment by National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines, whereas a lesser proportion of ATV-treated patients would be recommended for lipid-lowering treatment. Atazanavir does not lead to dyslipidemia in ARV-naive patients, and may limit the need for lipid-lowering strategies to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir compared with twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine, for management of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 96-week efficacy and safety results of the CASTLE study.

BACKGROUND: Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir demonstrated similar antiviral efficacy to twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir over 48 weeks, with less gastrointestinal disturbance and a better lipid profile, in treatment-naive patients. METHODS: International, multicenter, open-label, 96-week noninferiority randomized trial of atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily vs lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily, each in combination with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily, in antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL at 48 weeks. Results through 96 weeks are reported. RESULTS: Of 883 patients enrolled, 440 were randomized to atazanavir/ritonavir and 443 to lopinavir/ritonavir. At week 96, more patients receiving atazanavir/ritonavir achieved HIV RNA <50 copies/mL (74% vs 68%, P < 0.05) in the intent-to-treat analysis. On both regimens, 7% of subjects were virologic failures by 96 weeks. Bilirubin-associated disorders were greater in patients taking atazanavir/ritonavir. Treatment-related gastrointestinal adverse events were greater in patients taking lopinavir/ritonavir. Mean changes from baseline in fasting total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides at week 96 were significantly higher with lopinavir/ritonavir (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Noninferiority of atazanavir/ritonavir to lopinavir/ritonavir was confirmed at 96 weeks. Atazanavir/ritonavir had a better lipid profile and fewer gastrointestinal adverse events than lopinavir/ritonavir.