Dataset Information

Comparison of once-daily versus twice-daily combination antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naive patients: results of AIDS clinical trials group (ACTG) A5073, a 48-week randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Dosing frequency is an important determinant of regimen effectiveness. Methods. To compare efficacy of once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) antiretroviral therapy, we randomized human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive, treatment-naive patients to lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) administered at a dosage of 400 mg of lopinavir and 100 mg of ritonavir BID (n = 160) or 800 mg of lopinavir and 200 mg of ritonavir QD (n = 161), plus either emtricitabine 200 mg QD and extended-release stavudine at a dosage of 100 mg QD or tenofovir at a dosage of 300 mg QD. Randomization was stratified by screening HIV RNA level <100,000 copies/mL versus > or = 100,000 copies/mL. The primary efficacy end point was sustained virologic response (SVR; defined as reaching and maintaining an HIV RNA level <200 copies/mL) through week 48.Subjects were 78% male, 33% Hispanic, and 34% black. A total of 82% of subjects completed the study, and 71% continued to receive the initially assigned dosage schedule. The probability of SVR did not differ significantly for the BID versus QD comparison, with an absolute proportional difference of 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.07 to 0.12). The comparison depended on the screening RNA stratum (P=.038); in the higher RNA stratum, the probability of SVR was significantly better in the BID arm than in the QD arm: 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-0.94) versus 0.76 (95% CI, 0.64-0.84), a difference of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.01-0.25). Lopinavir trough plasma concentrations were higher with BID dosing. Adherence to prescribed doses of LPV/r was 90.6% in the QD arm versus 79.9% in the BID arm (P<.001). Conclusions. Although subjects assigned to QD regimens had better adherence, overall treatment outcomes were similar in the QD and BID arms. Subjects with HIV RNA levels > or =100,000 copies/mL had better SVR with BID regimens at 48 weeks, which suggests a possible advantage in this setting for more frequent dosing. Clinical trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00036452.

SUBMITTER: Flexner C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2833234 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of once-daily versus twice-daily combination antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naive patients: results of AIDS clinical trials group (ACTG) A5073, a 48-week randomized controlled trial.

Flexner Charles C Tierney Camlin C Gross Robert R Andrade Adriana A Lalama Christina C Eshleman Susan H SH Aberg Judith J Sanne Ian I Parsons Teresa T Kashuba Angela A Rosenkranz Susan L SL Kmack Anne A Ferguson Elaine E Dehlinger Marjorie M Mildvan Donna D

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 20100401 7

<h4>Background</h4>Dosing frequency is an important determinant of regimen effectiveness. Methods. To compare efficacy of once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) antiretroviral therapy, we randomized human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive, treatment-naive patients to lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) administered at a dosage of 400 mg of lopinavir and 100 mg of ritonavir BID (n = 160) or 800 mg of lopinavir and 200 mg of ritonavir QD (n = 161), plus either emtricitabine 200 mg QD and extended-re ...[more]

PMID: 20192725

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAntiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence is critical for successful HIV treatment outcomes. Once-daily dosing could improve adherence. Plasma concentrations of once-daily vs twice-daily abacavir + lamivudine are bioequivalent in children, but no randomized trial has compared virological outcomes.MethodsChildren taking abacavir + lamivudine-containing first-line regimens twice daily for more than 36 weeks in the ARROW trial (NCT02028676, ISRCTN24791884) were randomized to continue twice-daily vs move to once-daily abacavir + lamivudine (open-label). Co-primary outcomes were viral load suppression at week 48 (12% noninferiority margin, measured retrospectively) and lamivudine or abacavir-related grade 3/4 adverse events.ResultsSix hundred and sixty-nine children (median 5 years, range 1-16) were randomized to twice daily (n = 333) vs once daily (n = 336) after median 1.8 years on twice-daily abacavir + lamivudine-containing first-line ART. Children were followed for median 114 weeks. At week 48, 242/331 (73%) twice daily vs 236/330 (72%) once daily had viral load less than 80 copies/ml [difference -1.6% (95% confidence interval -8.4,+5.2%) P = 0.65]; 79% twice daily vs 78% once daily had viral load less than 400 copies/ml (P = 0.76) (week 96 results similar). One grade 3/4 adverse event was judged uncertainly related to abacavir + lamivudine (hepatitis; once daily). At week 48, 9% twice daily vs 10% once daily reported missing one or more ART pills in the last 4 weeks (P = 0.74) and 8 vs 8% at week 96 (P = 0.90). Carers strongly preferred once-daily dosing. There was no difference between randomized groups in postbaseline drug-resistance mutations or drug-susceptibility; WHO 3/4 events; ART-modifying, grade 3/4 or serious adverse events; CD4% or weight-for-age/height-for-age (all P > 0.15).ConclusionOnce-daily abacavir + lamivudine was noninferior to twice daily in viral load suppression, with similar resistance, adherence, clinical, immunological and safety outcomes. Abacavir + lamivudine provides the first once-daily nucleoside backbone across childhood that can be used to simplify ART.

Project description:BackgroundTraditional first line regimens containing a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor or protease inhibitor may not be suitable for a subset of antiretroviral-naïve patients such as those with certain co-morbidities, women of child-bearing potential, and intolerability to components of standard first line therapy. This study was conducted to determine if alternate treatment options may meet the needs of both general and special patient populations. The ACTION study was a randomized, open-label, multicenter, 48-week trial that compared the safety and efficacy of a triple nucleoside regimen versus a protease inhibitor plus a dual nucleoside regimen in HIV-1 treatment-naïve subjects.Results279 HIV-infected subjects with HIV-1 RNA (VL) >5000 but < 200,000 copies/mL (c/mL) and CD4+ count >/= 100 cells/mm3 were randomized (1:1) to receive abacavir sulfate/lamivudine/zidovudine (ABC/3TC/ZDV) twice-daily or atazanavir (ATV) once-daily plus lamivudine/zidovudine (3TC/ZDV) twice-daily. Protocol-defined virologic failure was based on multiple failure criteria.Non-inferiority of ABC/3TC/ZDV to ATV+3TC/ZDV was established with 62% vs. 59% of subjects achieving a VL < 50 c/mL at week 48, [ITT(E), M/S = F, 95% CI: -5.9, 10.4]. Similar results were observed in the 230 (82%) subjects with baseline VL<100,000 c/mL (ABC/3TC/ZDV vs. ATV+3TC/ZDV), 66% vs. 59%; 95% CI: -5.6, 19.5. However, ABC/3TC/ZDV did not meet the non-inferiority criterion compared to ATV+3TC/ZDV in the 48 subjects with baseline VL >/= 100,000 c/mL, 39% vs. 60%; 95% CI: -49.2, 7.4, respectively. Protocol-defined virologic failure was similar between groups.ConclusionABC/3TC/ZDV demonstrated comparable virologic efficacy to ATV+3TC/ZDV in this population over 48 weeks. In those with a baseline VL >/= 100,000 c/mL, subjects in the ATV+3TC/ZDV showed better virologic efficacy. Both regimens offer benefits in select therapy-naïve subjects.Trial registration[Clinical Trials Identifier, NCT00082394].

Dataset Information

Comparison of once-daily versus twice-daily combination antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naive patients: results of AIDS clinical trials group (ACTG) A5073, a 48-week randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Comparison of once-daily versus twice-daily combination antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naive patients: results of AIDS clinical trials group (ACTG) A5073, a 48-week randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets