Efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin versus placebo and the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin versus placebo in young people with type 2 diabetes (DINAMO): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel group, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of type 2 diabetes in young people is increasing, but treatments remain limited. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of an empagliflozin dosing regimen versus placebo and linagliptin versus placebo on glycaemic control in young people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 108 centres in 15 countries, participants with type 2 diabetes (aged 10-17 years; HbA1c 6·5-10·5% [48-91 mmol/mol]) who had been previously treated with metformin or insulin were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to oral empagliflozin 10 mg, oral linagliptin 5 mg, or placebo. Participants in the empagliflozin group who did not have HbA1c below 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) by week 12 underwent a second double-blinded randomisation (1:1) at week 14, either remaining on 10 mg or increasing to 25 mg. Participants in the placebo group were randomly reassigned (1:1:1) in a double-blinded manner at week 26 to linagliptin 5 mg or one of the empagliflozin doses (10 mg or 25 mg). Investigators were masked throughout the trial and received assignments of blinded medication kits through interactive response technology for all participants at the initial randomisation and for the re-randomisations at weeks 14 and 26. The primary outcome was change from baseline in HbA1c at 26 weeks. For empagliflozin, results were based on a pooled analysis for all participants on empagliflozin. Safety was assessed until week 52. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03429543. FINDINGS: Between April 26, 2018, and May 26, 2022, of 262 screened participants, 158 (60%) were randomly assigned to treatment (53 [34%] to placebo, 52 [33%] to empagliflozin 10 mg, and 53 [34%] to linagliptin). For the primary outcome, the adjusted mean HbA1c change from baseline at week 26 was -0·84% [-9·2 mmol/mol] in the empagliflozin pooled group versus placebo (95% CI -1·50 to -0·19 [-16·4 to -2·1]; p=0·012); the corresponding change from baseline for linagliptin versus placebo was -0·34% [-3·8 mmol/mol; 95% CI -0·99 to 0·30 [-10·8 to 3·3]; p=0·29). Adverse events occurred in 34 (64%) participants in the placebo group, 40 (77%) in the empagliflozin pooled group, and 37 (71%) in the linagliptin group, up to week 26. Of these, severe adverse events were reported in two (4%) participants in the placebo group, one (2%) in the empagliflozin pooled group, and one (2%) in the linagliptin group. Hypoglycaemia was the most frequently reported adverse event with higher rates for those on active drug treatment compared with placebo. No severe hypoglycaemia cases were reported. INTERPRETATION: Empagliflozin provided clinically relevant placebo-corrected reductions in HbA1c, whereas linagliptin did not, and might offer a new treatment option for young people with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: The Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company Alliance.

Potential contribution of haemoconcentration to changes in lipid variables with empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of pooled data from four phase 3 randomized clinical trials.

AIM: To examine the association between changes in lipids and markers of haemoconcentration (haematocrit and serum albumin) with empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using pooled data from four phase 3 randomized trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with T2D received placebo (n = 825), empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 830) or 25 mg (n = 822) for 24 weeks. In post hoc mediation analyses, we assessed total changes in LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, apolipoprotein (Apo) B, and Apo A-I, and changes in these variables associated with, and independent of, changes in haematocrit and serum albumin at week 24 using ANCOVA models. RESULTS: Empagliflozin versus placebo increased serum LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and Apo A-I, decreased triglycerides (empagliflozin 10 mg only), and (non-significantly) increased Apo B. Empagliflozin modestly increased haematocrit and serum albumin. In mediation analyses, haematocrit changes (increases) with empagliflozin were associated with significant changes (increases) in all lipid variables, including Apo B. Except for triglycerides (non-significant), similar lipid variable associations were observed with serum albumin changes. Haematocrit- and serum albumin-independent changes in lipids with empagliflozin were significant for HDL-cholesterol (increases), mostly significant for triglycerides (decreases), and less so for other lipid fractions. CONCLUSION: Haematocrit and serum albumin increases were associated with increases in lipid fractions with empagliflozin. Empagliflozin-associated changes in serum lipids, particularly LDL-cholesterol increases, may be partly attributable to haemoconcentration resulting from increased urinary volume and subsequent volume contraction.

Low-dose empagliflozin as adjunct-to-insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes: A valid modelling and simulation analysis to confirm efficacy.

AIM: To confirm the observed reduction in HbA1c for the 2.5 mg dose in EASE-3 by modelling and simulation analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Independent of data from EASE-3 that tested 2.5 mg, we simulated the effect of a 2.5 mg dose through patient-level, exposure-response modelling in the EASE-2 clinical study. A primary semi-mechanistic model evaluated efficacy considering clinical insulin dose adjustments made after treatment initiation that potentially limited HbA1c reductions. The model was informed by pharmacokinetic, insulin dose, mean daily glucose and HbA1c data, and was verified by comparing the simulations with the observed HbA1c change in EASE-3. One of two empagliflozin phase 3 trials in type 1 diabetes (EASE-3 but not EASE-2) included a lower 2.5 mg dose. A placebo-corrected HbA1c reduction of 0.28% was demonstrated without the increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis observed at higher doses (10 mg and 25 mg). Since only one trial included the lower dose, we aimed to confirm the observed reduction in HbA1c for the 2.5 mg dose by modelling and simulation analyses. RESULTS: The simulated 26-week mean HbA1c change was -0.41% without insulin dose adjustment and -0.29% at 26 weeks with insulin dose adjustment. A simplified (descriptive) model excluding insulin dose and mean daily glucose confirmed the -0.29% HbA1c change that would have been observed had the EASE-2 population received a 2.5 mg dose for 26/52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The HbA1c benefit of low-dose empagliflozin directly observed in the EASE-3 trial was confirmed by two modelling and simulation approaches.

Empagliflozin as Adjunctive to Insulin Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes: The EASE Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of empagliflozin 10- and 25-mg doses plus a unique lower dose (2.5 mg) as adjunct to intensified insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The EASE (Empagliflozin as Adjunctive to inSulin thErapy) program (N = 1,707) included two double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: EASE-2 with empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 243), 25 mg (n = 244), and placebo (n = 243), 52-week treatment; and EASE-3 with empagliflozin 2.5 mg (n = 241), 10 mg (n = 248), 25 mg (n = 245), and placebo (n = 241), 26-week treatment. Together they evaluated empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg, doses currently approved in treatment of type 2 diabetes, and additionally 2.5 mg on 26-week change in glycated hemoglobin (primary end point) and weight, glucose time-in-range (>70 to ≤180 mg/dL), insulin dose, blood pressure, and hypoglycemia. RESULTS: The observed largest mean placebo-subtracted glycated hemoglobin reductions were -0.28% (95% CI -0.42, -0.15) for 2.5 mg, -0.54% (-0.65, -0.42) for 10 mg, and -0.53% (-0.65, -0.42) for 25 mg (all P < 0.0001). Empagliflozin 2.5/10/25 mg doses, respectively, reduced mean weight by -1.8/-3.0/-3.4 kg (all P < 0.0001); increased glucose time-in-range by +1.0/+2.9/+3.1 h/day (P < 0.0001 for 10 and 25 mg); lowered total daily insulin dose by -6.4/-13.3/-12.7% (all P < 0.0001); and decreased systolic blood pressure by -2.1/-3.9/-3.7 mmHg (all P < 0.05). Genital infections occurred more frequently on empagliflozin. Adjudicated diabetic ketoacidosis occurred more with empagliflozin 10 mg (4.3%) and 25 mg (3.3%) but was comparable between empagliflozin 2.5 mg (0.8%) and placebo (1.2%). Severe hypoglycemia was rare and frequency was similar between empagliflozin and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin improved glycemic control and weight in T1D without increasing hypoglycemia. Ketoacidosis rate was comparable between empagliflozin 2.5 mg and placebo but increased with 10 mg and 25 mg. Ketone monitoring for early ketoacidosis detection and intervention and lower empagliflozin doses may help to reduce this risk.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding study of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the dose of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Double-blind, randomized, controlled parallel group study comparing linagliptin 1 and 5 mg once daily, with placebo in 39 patients with T2D aged 10 to below 18 years. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) after 12 weeks of treatment. The key pharmacodynamic endpoint was DPP-4 inhibition during steady-state. RESULTS: Compared to placebo, there was a dose-dependent reduction in mean HbA1c of 0.48% and 0.63% with linagliptin 1 and 5 mg, respectively, associated with corresponding declines in mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 5.6 and 34.2 mg/dL. Median DPP-4 inhibition was 38% with linagliptin 1 mg and 79% with linagliptin 5 mg. Geometric mean trough levels of linagliptin were 3.80 and 7.42 nmol/L in the 1 and 5 mg groups, respectively; levels that were slightly higher than in adult patients with T2D that were most likely caused by higher plasma DPP-4 concentrations in the study population. There were no drug-related adverse events during treatment with either dose of linagliptin. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin was well tolerated and induced dose-dependent DPP-4 inhibition that was accompanied by corresponding reductions in HbA1c and FPG levels in young people with T2D. The results are consistent with the clinical efficacy and safety profile that have been reported for linagliptin in adult patients with T2D, favoring linagliptin 5 mg over 1 mg.

Glucose Exposure and Variability with Empagliflozin as Adjunct to Insulin in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data from a 4-Week, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial (EASE-1).

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the effect of empagliflozin as adjunct to insulin on 24-h glucose exposure and variability in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Patients (N = 75) with HbA1c ≥7.5% to ≤10.5% were randomized to receive empagliflozin 2.5 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, or placebo once daily as adjunct to insulin for 4 weeks. Insulin dose was to be kept as stable as possible during week 1 of treatment and was freely adjustable thereafter. Markers of glucose exposure and variability were assessed from 7-day blinded continuous glucose monitoring intervals. This study is completed ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01969747). RESULTS: Empagliflozin reduced hourly mean glucose area under the median curve over 24 h versus placebo within week 1 (adjusted mean differences: -12.2 mg/dL·h [95% confidence interval -23.9 to -0.5], -30.2 mg/dL·h [-42.2 to -18.2], and -33.0 mg/dL·h [-44.8 to -21.1] with empagliflozin 2.5, 10, and 25 mg, respectively; all P < 0.05) and increased time in glucose target range (>70 to ≤180 mg/dL). Results were sustained to week 4 with empagliflozin 25 mg. All empagliflozin doses significantly reduced glucose variability (interquartile range and mean amplitude of glucose excursions) versus placebo at weeks 1 and 4. Except for small increases in hours per day with glucose ≤70 mg/dL during the stable insulin period, empagliflozin did not increase time in hypoglycemia compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 1 diabetes, empagliflozin as adjunct to insulin decreased glucose exposure and variability and increased time in glucose target range.

Efficacy and Cardiovascular Safety of Linagliptin as an Add-On to Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes: A Pooled Comprehensive Post Hoc Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: With the expanding armamentarium of noninsulin therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus, the use of insulin with various oral agents is becoming more common. In this study, we assessed the efficacy and cardiovascular (CV) safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin as add-on to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis, data for patients receiving basal or basal-bolus insulin were pooled from 4 randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trials of linagliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo given as add-on to background glucose-lowering treatment. Changes in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and CV risk factors were assessed from baseline to end of trial. The primary CV endpoint was a composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke and hospitalization due to unstable angina. RESULTS: The number of patients receiving basal or basal-bolus insulin as background therapy was 1613 (linagliptin: n=811; placebo: n=802). The placebo-adjusted mean (SE) change from baseline in A1C was -0.41 (0.05)% (95% CI -0.50, -0.32; p<0.0001). Treatment with linagliptin provided a relative weight benefit and reduced insulin requirements without affecting blood pressure, heart rate or lipids. The incidence of hypoglycemia with linagliptin was similar to that for placebo (38.7% vs. 39.4%, respectively). The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary endpoint showed that treatment with linagliptin was not associated with an increased CV risk (HR 1.07 [95% CI 0.62, 1.85]). CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin, when added to ongoing insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes, improves glycemic control and has a neutral impact on major adverse CV events.

Cardiovascular safety of linagliptin in type 2 diabetes: a comprehensive patient-level pooled analysis of prospectively adjudicated cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular (CV) safety of linagliptin was evaluated in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: Pre-specified patient-level pooled analysis of all available double-blind, randomized, controlled trials, ≥ 12 weeks' duration (19 trials, 9459 subjects) of linagliptin versus placebo/active treatment. Primary end point: composite of prospectively adjudicated CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina (4P-MACE). Hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF) was also evaluated; adjudication of CHF was introduced during the phase 3 program (8 trials; 3314 subjects). 4P-MACE was assessed in placebo-controlled trials (subgroup of 18 trials; 7746 subjects). Investigator-reported events suggestive of CHF from 24 placebo-controlled trials (including trials <12 weeks' duration, 8778 subjects) were also analyzed. RESULTS: 5847 patients received linagliptin (5 mg: 5687, 10 mg: 160) and 3612 comparator (glimepiride: 775, voglibose: 162, placebo: 2675); cumulative exposure, 4421.3 and 3254.7 patient-years, respectively. 4P-MACE incidence rates: 13.4 per 1000 patient-years, linagliptin (60 events), 18.9, total comparators (62 events); overall hazard ratio (HR), 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.12). HR for adjudicated hospitalization for CHF (n = 21): 1.04 (0.43-2.47). For placebo-controlled trials, 4P-MACE incidence rates: 14.9 per 1000 patient-years, linagliptin (43 events), 16.4, total comparators (29 events); overall HR, 1.09 (95% CI, 0.68-1.75). Occurrence of investigator-reported events suggestive of CHF was low for linagliptin- (26 events, 0.5%; serious: 16 events, 0.3%) and placebo-treated (8 events, 0.2%; serious: 6 events, 0.2%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin is not associated with increased CV risk versus pooled active comparators or placebo in patients with T2DM.

Medical applications of near-eye display devices: an exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: Near-eye display devices (such as Google Glass) may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of clinical care by giving clinicians information (such as the patient's vital signs) continuously within their field of vision during various procedures. We describe the use of Glass during a radiological intervention in three patients. Other possible applications (including tele-mentoring and the supervision of trainees) are discussed and a classification proposed. METHODS: An app was developed to facilitate the use of Glass, so vital physical signs (pulse and blood pressure) could be projected on the near-eye display, via an intranet to protect sensitive data. The device was then used during radiological interventions (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty) in three patients, and assessed by the interventionalists who were interviewed before and after each procedure. RESULTS: The interventionalists reported that Google Glass improved concentration on the task in hand by reducing head and neck movements (which would be needed to view several remote monitors). However, heat generation by the device and low battery capacity are shortcomings for which solutions must be developed, and data protection is mandatory. CONCLUSION: Google Glass may have a number of clinical applications and can quicken interventions where vital signs or other visual data need to be monitored by the operator.

Linagliptin added to sulphonylurea in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment.

Glucose-lowering treatment options are limited for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with advanced stages of renal impairment (RI). This retrospective analysis evaluated glycaemic efficacy and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin added to sulphonylurea. Three randomized phase 3 studies (n = 619) including T2DM subjects with moderate or severe RI [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²] were analysed; only sulphonylurea-treated subjects who received additional linagliptin (n = 58) or placebo (n = 33) were evaluated. Linagliptin provided meaningful placebo-adjusted HbA1c reductions of -0.68% (95% confidence interval: -1.19, -0.17), -1.08% (-2.02, -0.14) and -0.62% (-1.25, 0.01) after 24, 18 and 12 weeks, respectively. There was a similar incidence of overall adverse events (linagliptin: 79.3%, placebo: 75.8%) and hypoglycaemia (linagliptin: 37.9%, placebo: 39.4%). Severe hypoglycaemia was more common with placebo (linagliptin: 1.7%, placebo: 6.1%). These data suggest that linagliptin is a safe and effective glucose-lowering treatment in T2DM patients with moderate-to-severe RI for whom sulphonylurea treatment is no longer sufficient.

Cardiovascular safety with linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pre-specified, prospective, and adjudicated meta-analysis of a phase 3 programme.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the cardiovascular (CV) safety profile of the dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor linagliptin versus comparator treatments. METHODS: This was a pre-specified meta-analysis of CV events in linagliptin or comparator-treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from eight Phase 3 studies. All suspected CV events were prospectively adjudicated by a blinded independent expert committee. The primary endpoint was a composite of CV death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for unstable angina. Three secondary composite endpoints derived from the adjudicated CV events were also pre-specified. Risk estimates were calculated using several statistical methods including Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 5239 treated patients (mean ± SD HbA1c 65 ± 10 mmol/mol [8.0 ± 0.9%], age 58 ± 10 years, BMI 29 ± 5 kg/m2), 3319 received linagliptin once daily (5 mg, 3159; 10 mg, 160) and 1920 received comparators (placebo, 977; glimepiride 1-4 mg, 781; voglibose 0.6 mg, 162). Cumulative exposure (patient-years) was 2060 for linagliptin and 1372 for comparators. Primary CV events occurred in 11 (0.3%) patients receiving linagliptin and 23 (1.2%) receiving comparators. The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary endpoint showed significantly lower risk with linagliptin than comparators (HR 0.34 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.70]) as did estimates for all secondary endpoints (HR ranging from 0.34 to 0.55 [all upper 95% CIs < 1.0]). CONCLUSIONS: These results from a large Phase 3 programme support the hypothesis that linagliptin may have CV benefits in patients with T2DM.

Combined tipranavir and enfuvirtide use associated with higher plasma tipranavir concentrations but not with increased hepatotoxicity: sub-analysis from RESIST.

In RESIST, enfuvirtide co-administered with ritonavir-boosted tipranavir was associated with higher plasma tipranavir concentrations, which seldom rose above those associated with an increased risk of grade 3/4 transaminase elevations. Transaminase elevation rates (6.5%) and clinical hepatic event rates (5.9 events/100 person exposure years) were lower in the tipranavir/ritonavir with enfuvirtide group than in the tipranavir/ritonavir without enfuvirtide group. Observed increases in plasma tipranavir concentrations thus had no apparent effect on the risk of hepatotoxicity.

Long-term efficacy and safety of tipranavir boosted with ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients failing multiple protease inhibitor regimens: 80-week data from a phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: BI 1182.2, an open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase 2 study, evaluated efficacy and tolerability of the protease inhibitor (PI) tipranavir (TPV; 500 mg twice daily or 1000 mg twice daily) administered with ritonavir (100 mg twice daily) in combination with 1 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and 1 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor in multiple PI-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. METHODS: Forty-one patients were evaluated in 2 arms: low-dose (19 patients) or high-dose (22 patients) ritonavir-boosted tipranavir (TPV/r). Primary endpoints were change from baseline in HIV-1 RNA concentrations at weeks 16, 24, 48, and 80 and percentage of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels lower than the limit of quantitation. Safety was evaluated by adverse events (AEs), grade 3/4 abnormalities, and serious AEs. RESULTS: Of all patients, 59% were still receiving TPV/r (14 in low-dose arm and 10 in high-dose arm) at week 80. Patients in both arms had a median >2.0-log10 reduction in plasma viral load. Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated that a similar proportion of patients in the high-dose and low-dose groups achieved plasma HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL at week 80 (43% vs. 32%; P = 0.527). The most frequently observed AEs were diarrhea, headache, and nausea. CONCLUSION: TPV/r combined with other active antiretroviral agents can provide a durable treatment response for highly treatment-experienced patients.

Ritonavir-boosted tipranavir demonstrates superior efficacy to ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients: 24-week results of the RESIST-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tipranavir, a novel protease inhibitor, has demonstrated antiviral activity against protease inhibitor-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) isolates. The Randomized Evaluation of Strategic Intervention in multi-drug reSistant patients with Tipranavir (RESIST-2) trial is an ongoing, open-label, phase III trial comparing ritonavir-boosted tipranavir (TPV/r) plus an optimized background regimen with an individually optimized, ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients. METHODS: Patients at 171 sites in Europe and Latin America who had received > or = 2 previous protease inhibitor regimens, had triple-antiretroviral class experience, had an HIV-1 RNA level > or = 1000 copies/mL, and had genotypically demonstrated primary protease inhibitor resistance were eligible. After genotypic resistance tests were performed, a protease inhibitor and optimized background regimen were selected before randomization. Patients were randomized to receive either TPV/r or comparator protease inhibitor-ritonavir (CPI/r) and were stratified on the basis of preselected protease inhibitor and enfuvirtide use. Treatment response was defined as a confirmed HIV-1 load reduction > or = 1 log10 less than the baseline value without a treatment change at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 863 patients were randomized and treated. At baseline, the mean HIV-1 load was 4.73 log10 copies/mL, and the mean CD4+ cell count was 218 cells/mm3. The preplanned 24-week efficacy analyses of 539 patients demonstrated treatment response rates of 41% in the TPV/r arm and 14.9% in the CPI/r arm (intent-to-treat analysis; P<.0001). The mean CD4+ cell count increased by 51 cells/mm3 in the TPV/r arm and by 18 cells/mm3 in the CPI/r arm. The most common adverse events were mild-to-moderate diarrhea, nausea, and headache. Grade 3 or greater elevations in serum transaminase, cholesterol, and triglyceride levels were more frequent in the TPV/r arm. CONCLUSIONS: TPV/r had superior antiviral activity and increased immunologic benefits, compared with CPI/r, at week 24 among treatment-experienced patients infected with multidrug-resistant HIV-1.

Durable efficacy of tipranavir-ritonavir in combination with an optimised background regimen of antiretroviral drugs for treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients at 48 weeks in the Randomized Evaluation of Strategic Intervention in multi-drug reSistant patients with Tipranavir (RESIST) studies: an analysis of combined data from two randomised open-label trials.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for HIV-1 infected individuals who have received extensive previous antiretroviral therapy are limited. We compared efficacy and safety of the novel non-peptidic protease inhibitor tipranavir co-administered with ritonavir plus an optimised background regimen with that of an investigator-selected ritonavir-boosted comparator protease inhibitor (CPI-ritonavir) in such patients. METHODS: We did a combined analysis of 48-week data from two ongoing, randomised, open-label, multinational, phase III, RESIST studies. HIV-1-infected adults with 3 months or longer previous triple antiretroviral class experience, two or more previous protease inhibitor regimens, HIV-1 RNA 1000 copies per mL or greater, and genotypically demonstrated primary resistance to protease inhibitor, were eligible. Primary endpoints were proportion of treatment responders (with reduction in viral load of 1 log(10) copies per mL or greater below baseline without treatment change) at 48 weeks and time to treatment failure through 48 weeks (intention-to-treat analysis). The RESIST studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00054717 (RESIST-1) and NCT00144170 (RESIST-2). FINDINGS: 3324 patients were screened; 746 received tipranavir-ritonavir and 737 CPI-ritonavir. 486 (65.1%) patients on tipranavir-ritonavir and 192 (26.1%) on CPI-ritonavir remained on assigned treatment until week 48. At week 48, more patients achieved and maintained treatment response in the tipranavir-ritonavir group than in the CPI-ritonavir group (251 [33.6%] vs 113 [15.3%]; p<0.0001). Median time to treatment failure was significantly longer in the tipranavir-ritonavir group than in the CPI-ritonavir group (113 days vs 0 days; p<0.0001). Gastrointestinal system disorders and raised transaminase, cholesterol, and triglycerides were more frequent in the tipranavir-ritonavir group than in the CPI-ritonavir group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with CPI-ritonavir, tipranavir-ritonavir with an optimised background regimen provides better virological and immunological responses over 48 weeks in patients who have received extensive previous antiretroviral treatment.