Safety and efficacy of rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine in China and South Korea: a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No acute treatments targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) have been approved for use in China or South Korea. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of rimegepant-an orally administered small molecule CGRP antagonist-with placebo in the acute treatment of migraine among adults in these countries. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial was done at 86 outpatient clinics at hospitals and academic medical centres (73 in China and 13 in South Korea). Participants were adults (≥18 years) with at least a 1-year history of migraine who had two to eight moderate or severe attacks per month and fewer than 15 headache days per month within the 3 months before the screening visit. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to 75 mg rimegepant or placebo to treat a single migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. Randomisation was stratified by the use of preventive medication and by country. The allocation sequence was generated and implemented by study personnel using an interactive web-response system accessed online from each study centre. All participants, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The coprimary endpoints of freedom from pain and freedom from the most bothersome symptom (nausea, phonophobia, or photophobia) 2 h after dosing were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (randomly assigned participants who took study medication for a migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity, and provided at least one efficacy datapoint after treatment) using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel tests. Safety was assessed in all participants who received rimegepant or placebo. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04574362, and is completed. FINDINGS: 1431 participants were randomly assigned (716 [50%] to rimegepant and 715 [50%] to placebo). 668 (93%) participants in the rimegepant group and 674 (94%) participants in the placebo group received treatment. 1340 participants were included in the mITT analysis (666 [93%] in the rimegepant group and 674 [94%] in the placebo group). 2 h after dosing, rimegepant was superior to placebo for pain freedom (132 [20%] of 666 vs 72 [11%] of 674, risk difference 9·2, 95% CI 5·4-13·0; p<0·0001) and freedom from the most bothersome symptom (336 [50%] of 666 participants vs 241 [36%] of 674 participants, 14·8, 9·6-20·0; p<0·0001). The most common (≥1%) adverse events were protein in urine (8 [1%] of 668 participants in the rimepegant group vs 7 [1%] of 674 participants in the placebo group), nausea (7 [1%] of 668 vs 18 [3%] of 674), and urinary tract infection (5 [1%] of 668 vs 8 [1%] of 674). There were no rimegepant-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Among adults living in China or South Korea, a single dose of 75 mg rimegepant was effective for the acute treatment of migraine. Safety and tolerability were similar to placebo. Our findings suggest that rimegepant might be a useful new addition to the range of medications for the acute treatment of migraine in China and South Korea, but further studies are needed to support long-term efficacy and safety and to compare rimegepant with other medications for the acute treatment of migraine in this population. FUNDING: BioShin Limited. TRANSLATIONS: For the Chinese and Korean translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Pharmacokinetics and inhibitory quotient of atazanavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-infected, treatment-naive patients who participated in the CASTLE Study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the pharmacokinetics and inhibitory quotient (IQ) of atazanavir/ritonavir- and lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimens in HIV-infected, treatment-naive patients. METHODS: The CASTLE Study was a 96 week randomized study comparing 300 mg of atazanavir once daily with 400 mg of lopinavir twice daily, each with low-dose ritonavir (100 mg) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine in HIV-infected, treatment-naive patients. A subset of patients participated in an intensive pharmacokinetic evaluation of the atazanavir regimen (n = 18) and the lopinavir regimen (n = 21) at week 4. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00272779) RESULTS: Atazanavir geometric mean (CV%) C(max), C(min) and AUC over the dosing interval were 2897 (46) ng/mL, 526 (57) ng/mL and 28 605 (46) ng ·â€Šh/mL, respectively, and for lopinavir they were 10 655 (51) ng/mL, 5944 (68) ng/mL and 90 946 (59) ng ·â€Šh/mL, respectively. The baseline protein binding-adjusted 90% effective concentration (PBA-EC(90)) was 16 (44) ng/mL for atazanavir and 173 (44) ng/mL for lopinavir. The median IQ (min, max), calculated as the ratio of C(min) to individual baseline PBA-EC(90), was 35 (4, 77) for atazanavir and 34 (11, 129) for lopinavir. The C(max) for ritonavir was 46% higher, while AUC(0-24) and C(min) were 16% and 72% lower in the atazanavir regimen compared with the lopinavir regimen. Tenofovir exposures were similar with both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Atazanavir (300 mg once daily) and lopinavir (400 mg twice daily), each with low-dose ritonavir, achieved similar IQs in HIV-infected, treatment-naive patients. These results are supportive of the main clinical finding of the CASTLE Study, that the atazanavir/ritonavir-based regimen is non-inferior in antiviral efficacy to the lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen in antiretroviral-naive subjects.

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.

Comparative gender analysis of the efficacy and safety of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir at 96 weeks in the CASTLE study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the overall results of the CASTLE study pertain to both genders, we analysed the efficacy and safety of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in 277 female and 606 male patients in the open-label, multinational trial over 96 weeks. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00272779. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients aged ≥ 18 years with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 5000 copies/mL were randomized to receive either atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily or lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily, with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily. RESULTS: At week 96, confirmed virological response rates (HIV RNA <50 copies/mL; intent-to-treat analysis) were higher in women and men receiving atazanavir/ritonavir than those receiving lopinavir/ritonavir and lower in women than men in both treatment arms (67% of women and 77% of men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 63% of women and 71% of men on lopinavir/ritonavir). These differences were not observed in the on-treatment analysis. Mean change in CD4 cell count from baseline to week 96 was 265 cells/mm(3) for women and 269 cells/mm(3) for men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 298 cells/mm(3) for women and 286 cells/mm(3) for men on lopinavir/ritonavir. Discontinuation rates were higher in women than men in each treatment arm (22% of women and 15% of men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 29% of women and 18% of men on lopinavir/ritonavir). In women and men, grade 2-4 nausea and diarrhoea were more frequent in the lopinavir/ritonavir group; jaundice and hyperbilirubinaemia occurred more frequently in the atazanavir/ritonavir group. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir is an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option for women and men with HIV-1 infection. The sex-based differences in response may be due to higher discontinuation rates in women.

Treatment of advanced HIV disease in antiretroviral-naïve HIV-1-infected patients receiving once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir or twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine.

Current guidelines for HIV therapy recommend initiating treatment at a CD4 cell count of 500 cells/mm(3). However, a large proportion of patients with HIV infection begin antiretroviral treatment at a more advanced stage. In the CASTLE study, patients with the most advanced HIV disease (CD4 cell count <50 cells/mm(3)) showed that 78% (45/58) vs. 58% (28/48) of the patients achieved HIV RNA <50 copies/mL in the intent-to-treat analysis at week 96 for atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir, respectively. This current sub-analysis of the CASTLE study describes demographics, virologic failure, discontinuations, safety, tolerability, immunologic response, and clinical outcomes for the following baseline strata: CD4 cell count (cells/mm(3)) <50, 50 to <100, 100 to <200, and ≥200 and HIV RNA (copies/mL) <100,000, 100,000 to <500,000, and ≥500,000. In the lowest CD4 cell count stratum (<50 cells/mm(3)), the proportion of discontinuations was 2-fold greater for the lopinavir/ritonavir arm (33%) than for the atazanavir/ritonavir arm (16%) with a similar rate of virologic failure between the two groups. Also in this CD4 cell count stratum, grades 2-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25% in the atazanavir/ritonavir group and in 43% of lopinavir/ritonavir group, and the rate was also higher than in the higher CD4 cell count strata within the lopinavir/ritonavir treatment group (range: 29-34%). Grades 2-4 treatment-related diarrhea and nausea occurred in more patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir than atazanavir/ritonavir in all strata. The atazanavir/ritonavir group had more grades 2-4 treatment-related jaundice than in the lopinavir/ritonavir group. These results highlight the importance of tolerability of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the patients at greatest risk of morbidity and mortality when using regimens of similar potency.

Gastrointestinal tolerability and quality of life in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients: data from the CASTLE study.

Most ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI)-based antiretroviral regimens offer comparable levels of virological efficacy. Thus, the tolerability of the regimen becomes a distinguishing factor with implications for patient quality of life (QoL), treatment adherence, and clinical outcome. This article describes results from the CASTLE study (comparing once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir [ATV/RTV] with twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir [LPV/RTV], both in combination with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine, in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients) and an evaluation of the impact of gastrointestinal (GI) complications of treatment on patient QoL, as measured by the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) QoL questionnaire (IBS-QoL). Changes in IBS-QoL from baseline over time (to week 24) were classified as: "Improvement" (> or =2-point positive change from baseline), "No change" (<2-point change), or "Worsening" (> or =2-point negative change). Data were collected on GI adverse events (AEs) and use of GI medications. Of the 599 patients with IBS-QoL-evaluable data through week 24, fewer patients in the ATV/RTV group than in the LPV/RTV group experienced grade 2-4 treatment-related GI AEs including diarrhea (3% versus 10%), nausea (5% versus 7%), and vomiting (<1% on both arms). Nearly three times as many patients receiving LPV/RTV used GI medications. ATV/RTV was associated with an increase in overall IBS-QoL scores and more patients receiving ATV/RTV than LPV/RTV experienced improvement in IBS-QoL through week 24. In contrast to LPV/RTV, ATV/RTV treatment was associated with earlier and more positive improvements in QoL scores across CD4 sub-groups. Differences in the health-related QoL profile between ATV/RTV and LPV/RTV may be important when selecting PI-based antiretroviral regimens.

96-week efficacy and safety of atazanavir, with and without ritonavir, in a HAART regimen in treatment-naive patients.

This study assesses virologic response, safety, tolerability, and changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in antiretroviral (ARV)-naive patients treated with 2 atazanavir (ATV)-based regimens over 96 weeks. Treatment-naive adult patients (n = 200) were randomized to receive either ATV 300 mg with ritonavir (RTV) 100 mg (ATV300/r, n = 95) or ATV 400 mg (ATV400; n = 105). At week 96, 75% of ATV300/r-treated and 70% of ATV400-treated patients achieved viral loads <400 copies/mL (difference estimate [95% confidence interval, CI] = 5.1 [-7.1 to 17.2]). Five and 20 patients, respectively, experienced virologic failure. Adverse event-related discontinuations occurred among 8% receiving ATV300/r and 3% receiving ATV400. Plasma lipid elevations were generally low. Both regimens were well tolerated and associated with sustained improvements in HRQoL. These findings demonstrate long-term efficacy, tolerability, and safety of both ATV300/r and ATV400 in ARV-naive patients through 96 weeks with improvements in HRQoL.

Changes in body composition with ritonavir-boosted and unboosted atazanavir treatment in combination with Lamivudine and Stavudine: a 96-week randomized, controlled study.

This 96-week, open-label, randomized study assessed changes in body composition in treatment-naive patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 who were treated with either atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, in combination with stavudine and lamivudine. Both treatment groups had similar increases in trunk fat, but patients treated with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir had a significantly lower incidence of lipoatrophy.

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.

Suitable monitoring approaches to antiretroviral therapy in resource-poor settings: setting the research agenda.

The delivery of antiretroviral therapy in the developing world requires guidelines for the appropriate monitoring of therapy, including monitoring for treatment effectiveness and treatment failure, drug toxicities, adherence to therapy, and the emergence of resistant organisms. Guidelines developed in wealthy industrialized countries, which rely heavily on laboratory tests often unavailable in the developing world, may not be feasible or appropriate for resource-limited settings. Even if the standard of care routinely delivered in industrialized settings cannot be replicated, antiretroviral treatment programs with less-intense monitoring have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality from human immunodeficiency virus. Research to identify monitoring strategies that provide the greatest benefit to those living with human immunodeficiency virus in resource-limited settings and that use the available technologies and resources needs to be conducted within a conceptual and ethical framework that takes into account differences between rich and poor countries.

Comparison of body composition changes between atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir each in combination with tenofovir/emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naïve patients with HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Antiretroviral drug regimen choice may influence changes in body composition. The objective of this study was to compare changes in body composition between ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r) and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) over 96 weeks using data from a substudy of CASTLE, which compared once-daily ATV/r with twice-daily LPV/r, both in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine in treatment-naïve patients with HIV-1 infection. METHODS: We examined 224 patients (125 on ATV/r; 99 on LPV/r) at baseline, 48 and 96 weeks using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and computerised tomography. RESULTS: In the lowest baseline body mass index (BMI) group, there were significantly greater gains at week 96 for ATV/r than for LPV/r in subcutaneous adipose tissue and in visceral adipose tissue (VAT). By week 96, patients with lowest baseline CD4 cell counts on ATV/r had 28 % increases in VAT versus 14 % reductions for patients receiving LPV/r. Those with the lowest baseline BMI on ATV/r had 19 % increases in VAT versus reductions of 5 % for patients on LPV/r. In the highest baseline BMI group, the mean increase in triglycerides was 6 and 70 % in the ATV/r and LPV/r arms, respectively. Compared with baseline, an increase in proportion of patients with high waist circumference (WC)/high triglycerides at 96 weeks was noted in both treatment arms, but this increase was numerically greater with LVP/r (18 %) than with ATV/r (11 %). CONCLUSION: Truncal fat gains on ATV/r primarily led to increases in WC, which may reflect return to health, while on LPV/r increases in WC and triglycerides occurred. Changes in body composition with antiretroviral therapy are influenced by treatment choice and baseline characteristics.

Changes in biomarkers in HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients treated with tenofovir DF/emtricitabine plus atazanavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir for 96 weeks: the CASTLE biomarker substudy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of boosted protease inhibitor therapy on inflammatory and cardiovascular biomarker levels in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients remains unclear and may differ between agents. Unconjugated bilirubin elevation, which favourably affects vascular biomarkers and cardiovascular disease risk in Gilbert's syndrome, occurs with atazanavir. METHODS: CASTLE was a 96-week study comparing efficacy and safety in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients randomized to atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) versus lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), each in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. In this substudy, fasting plasma tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) and fibrinogen were assessed at baseline, week 12, 24, 48 and 96. Impact of grade 3-4 hyperbilirubinaemia on biomarkers was examined. RESULTS: CASTLE demonstrated similar efficacy in both treatment arms with higher rates of hyperbilirubinaemia on ATV/r and elevated lipids on LPV/r. In this substudy (n=224), patterns of biomarker expression were similar between the ATV/r and LPV/r groups and between-group differences in biomarker percentage change from baseline were not significant at 48 and/or 96 weeks. Hyperbilirubinaemia did not influence fasting biomarker expression. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were noted between ATV/r and LPV/r for biomarker percentage changes from baseline. Furthermore, no association was found between total bilirubin levels and biomarker expression.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of atazanavir-containing antiretroviral regimens, with or without ritonavir, in patients who are HIV-positive and treatment-naïve.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationships of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-protease inhibitor atazanavir (ATV) in the presence and absence of the pharmacokinetic booster ritonavir, utilizing ATV plasma trough concentrations (Ctrough ) and clinical biomarkers of antiviral efficacy and safety over 48 weeks. DESIGN: Randomized, open-label, multicenter, study designed to compare the efficacy and safety of ATV 300 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg (ATV300/r) with that of ATV 400 mg (ATV400). SETTING: Thirty clinic sites across 10 countries in Africa, Europe, North America, and South America. PATIENTS: Patients who were HIV-positive and treatment-naïve. INTERVENTIONS: Randomized to once-daily ATV400 (105 patients) or ATV300/r (95 patients) plus lamivudine and extended-release stavudine. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Ctrough approximately 24 hours after the prior unobserved dose was measured through week 48. Composite Ctrough (i.e., the geometric mean of all trough concentrations over the 48 weeks), population inhibitory quotient ([IQ], i.e., Ctrough divided population estimated protein binding adjusted effective concentration at 90% [EC90 , 14 ng/ml]), composite population IQ (i.e., ATV composite trough divided by population estimated protein binding adjusted EC90 ), HIV RNA, CD4 cell counts, and metabolic and safety parameters were also assessed. For ATV400 and ATV300/r, respectively, geometric mean composite Ctrough (CV%) were 127 (106) ng/ml and 670 (63) ng/ml, geometric mean composite population IQ were 9 and 48, and composite Ctrough values of HIV EC90 or more were achieved in 98% and 100% of patients. High ATV Ctrough was associated with low HIV RNA at week 48; however, 88% of patients had HIV RNA less than 400 copies/ml in the lowest composite Ctrough quartile. There was no clear relationship between ATV Ctrough and changes in CD4 cell count. Increases in total bilirubin or jaundice were associated with higher Ctrough . Modest increases in triglycerides and cholesterol were associated with the addition of ritonavir. CONCLUSION: ATV-containing regimens with or without ritonavir achieved ATV exposures that provide robust antiretroviral efficacy and acceptable tolerability in treatment-naïve patients.

Clinical and pharmacogenetic factors affecting neonatal bilirubinemia following atazanavir treatment of mothers during pregnancy.

A theoretical concern exists that atazanavir (ATV) use during pregnancy may exacerbate physiologic neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. The aim of this substudy was to evaluate patterns of neonatal bilirubin following ATV/ritonavir (RTV) treatment of pregnant mothers and clinical and pharmacogenetic factors that may correlate. The design involved a subanalysis of study AI424182, a multicenter, open-label, prospective, single-arm Phase I study. The study had two treatment arms: (1) ATV/RTV 300/100 mg once daily or (2) ATV/RTV 400/100 mg once daily, both in combination with zidovudine/lamivudine 300/150 mg twice daily. Total bilirubin was assessed at baseline, each visit, and delivery day for mothers and on days 1 (delivery day), 3, 5, and 7 and weeks 2 and 6 for neonates. Blood samples were obtained for UGT1A1 genotyping and ATV cord blood concentration. Bilirubin elevation of any grade occurred in 14/40 neonates (35%). All Grade 3 to 4 bilirubin abnormalities (n=7) occurred after day 14. The pattern of neonatal bilirubin levels reported was consistent with neonatal physiologic elevations of bilirubin. Little correlation was observed between either maternal bilirubin levels over the last 4 weeks of pregnancy (including delivery) or ATV cord concentration and neonatal bilirubin. There was a significant association between UGT1A1 genotype and bilirubin grade in the maternal population (p=0.0006) but not neonates (p=0.49). Neither neonatal UGT1A1 genotype nor cord blood ATV concentration is a good predictor of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. ATV/RTV treatment of mothers does not appear to exacerbate neonatal physiologic hyperbilirubinemia.

Clinical significance of hyperbilirubinemia among HIV-1-infected patients treated with atazanavir/ritonavir through 96 weeks in the CASTLE study.

CASTLE was a randomized 96-week study that demonstrated that atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) was noninferior to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients. Analyses were carried out among patients who received ATV/r in the CASTLE study to better understand the clinical significance of unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia associated with administration of boosted ATV. Hyperbilirubinemia was defined as total bilirubin (conjugated and unconjugated) elevation greater than 2.5 times the upper limit of normal (grade 3-4). Patients in the ATV/r arm were assessed based on the presence or absence of hyperbilirubinemia through week 96. Analyses included number of confirmed virologic responders (CVR; HIV RNA<50 copies per milliliter), impact of hyperbilirubinemia on symptoms, elevations in liver enzymes, patient quality of life, and medication adherence. Through 96 weeks in the CASTLE study, 44% of patients who received ATV/r had hyperbilirubinemia at any time point, and between 12.5% and 21.6% had hyperbilirubinemia at any single study visit. At 96 weeks, 74% of patients overall and 84% and 69% of patients with and without hyperbilirubinemia, respectively, achieved CVR. Symptoms of jaundice or scleral icterus occurred in 5% of patients overall and in 11% with hyperbilirubinemia and 0% without hyperbilirubinemia. Four percent of patients with and 3% of patients without hyperbilirubinemia had grade 3-4 elevations in liver transaminases. Less than 1% of patients discontinued treatment due to hyperbilirubinemia. There were no differences in quality of life or adherence between patients with or without hyperbilirubinemia. In the CASTLE study, hyperbilirubinemia observed in the ATV/r group did not negatively impact clinical outcomes in HIV-infected patients.

Prevalence and clinical significance of HIV drug resistance mutations by ultra-deep sequencing in antiretroviral-naïve subjects in the CASTLE study.

BACKGROUND: CASTLE compared the efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir with lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir-emtricitabine in ARV-naïve subjects from 5 continents. OBJECTIVES: Determine the baseline rate and clinical significance of TDR mutations using ultra-deep sequencing (UDS) in ARV-naïve subjects in CASTLE. METHODS: A case control study was performed on baseline samples for all 53 subjects with virologic failures (VF) at Week 48 and 95 subjects with virologic successes (VS) randomly selected and matched by CD4 count and viral load. UDS was performed using 454 Life Sciences/Roche technology. RESULTS: Of 148 samples, 141 had successful UDS (86 subtype B, 55 non-B subtypes). Overall, 30.5% of subjects had a TDR mutation at baseline; 15.6% only had TDR(s) at <20% of the viral population. There was no difference in the rate of TDRs by B (30.2%) or non-B subtypes (30.9%). VF (51) and VS (90) had similar rates of any TDRs (25.5% vs. 33.3%), NNRTI TDRs (11.1% vs.11.8%) and NRTI TDRs (24.4% vs. 25.5%). Of 9 (6.4%) subjects with M184V/I (7 at <20% levels), 6 experienced VF. 16 (11.3%) subjects had multiple TAMs, and 7 experienced VF. 3 (2.1%) subjects had both multiple TAMs+M184V, and all experienced VF. Of 14 (9.9%) subjects with PI TDRs (11 at <20% levels): only 1 experienced virologic failure. The majority of PI TDRs were found in isolation (e.g. 46I) at <20% levels, and had low resistance algorithm scores. CONCLUSION: Among a representative sample of ARV-naïve subjects in CASTLE, TDR mutations were common (30.5%); B and non-B subtypes had similar rates of TDRs. Subjects with multiple PI TDRs were infrequent. Overall, TDRs did not affect virologic response for subjects on a boosted PI by week 48; however, a small subset of subjects with extensive NRTI backbone TDR patterns experienced virologic failure.

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.

Improvement in lipid profiles in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-positive patients with hyperlipidemia after a switch to unboosted atazanavir.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to compare the change in fasting low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol from baseline to week 12 between patients receiving an atazanavir-containing regimen and those receiving comparator protease inhibitor (PI) regimens. DESIGN: AI424-067 was a 48-week, open-label, randomized, prospective study of 246 patients on PI-based regimens with hyperlipidemia [fasting LDL cholesterol >130 mg/dL (>3.4 mmol/L)] and with HIV RNA <50 copies per milliliter. Patients were randomized to switch to atazanavir (400 mg once daily) on day 1 (immediate switch) or maintain current PI regimen for the first 24 weeks, then switch to atazanavir (delayed switch). METHODS: Plasma lipid levels were compared with baseline values at weeks 12, 24, and 48. Safety, viral load, and CD4 profiles were also evaluated. RESULTS: At week 12, the mean percent changes in LDL cholesterol from baseline for the immediate-switch and delayed-switch groups were -15% and +1%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Favorable LDL cholesterol levels in the immediate-switch group were sustained through week 48. Both groups maintained comparable virologic control. Switching to atazanavir did not produce a significant change in safety or tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: A switch-either immediate or delayed-from a boosted or unboosted PI to unboosted atazanavir in patients with hyperlipidemia was associated with improvements in plasma lipid parameters without loss of virological suppression.

Efficacy and safety of atazanavir, with or without ritonavir, as part of once-daily highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients.

BACKGROUND: Atazanavir (ATV), the first once-daily protease inhibitor approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infection, is recommended for use in antiretroviral (ARV) treatment-naive and -experienced patients. Study AI424-089 was a prospective, randomized, open-label, 96-week study comparing 2 ATV-based treatment regimens in ARV-naive HIV-infected patients. METHODS: Adults with HIV RNA levels > or =2000 copies/mL were randomized (1:1) to once-daily ATV at a dose of 300 mg with ritonavir at a dose of 100 mg (ATV300/RTV) or ATV at a dose of 400 mg (ATV400); both regimens included lamivudine and an investigational extended-release formulation of stavudine. The primary endpoint for this noninferiority study was the proportion of patients (response rate) with an HIV RNA load <400 copies/mL at week 48. RESULTS: Response rates at week 48 were 86% and 85% on the ATV300/RTV and ATV400 regimens, respectively (difference estimate [95% confidence interval] = 1.5 [-8.2 to 11.1]). There were 3 and 10 patients with virologic failure in the ATV300/RTV and ATV400 groups, respectively. One patient (ATV400) developed phenotypic resistance to ATV associated with an I50L substitution. Adverse event-related discontinuations were 8% among ATV300/RTV-treated patients and <1% among ATV400-treated patients. Plasma lipid elevations were low with both regimens. Both regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the ATV300/RTV regimen and confirm the safety and efficacy of ATV400 in an ARV-naive patient population.