Print this page    •   Back to Web version of article

Lopinavir/r Monotherapy Used as Second-Line Therapy in Resource-Limited Settings

By Polly Clayden

July/August 2011

WHO guidelines recommend the use of boosted protease inhibitors second line in resource-limited settings. Findings from strategies looking at using lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) have been uncertain to date, both in limited and richer resourced settings.

Two posters at CROI 2011 presented data from studies evaluating LPV/r monotherapy, with showed further conflicting results.

ACTG 5230 evaluated lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy in a pilot study. It was a single arm multinational trial with sites in Malawi, Tanzania, South Africa, Thailand and India.

Participants had previously received first line NNRTI-containing regimens for at least six months and had detectable viral load 1,000-200,000 copies/mL. All participants received LPV/r monotherapy BID. The primary endpoint was remaining on monotherapy without virological failure at 24 weeks. This was defined as: failure to suppress viral load to <400 copies/mL by week 24, or confirmed rebound to >400 copies/mL at or after week 16 following confirmed suppression.

People with virologic failure received intensification with emtricitabine (FTC) 200 mg/tenofovir (TDF) 300 mg.

There were 123 participants enrolled in this trial. About 60% were women and they were a median of 39 years of age, with a median CD4 of 164 cells/mm3 and viral load of 4.34 log10 copies/mL (17% were >100,000 copies/mL).

Other baseline characteristics included: 93% with >1 year HAART, 98% with >1 NNRTI mutation and 95% with >1 NRTI mutation (87% M184V, 84% TAM, 11% K65R, 4% Q151M/L).

The majority, of participants completed 24 weeks of follow-up with the exception of one death at week 20 with a viral load of <400 copies/mL.

The investigators reported, at week 24, 107 (87%; 95% CI 80-92%) of participants remained on LPV/r monotherapy without virologic failure.

Of the remaining, 15 met the criteria for virologic failure and one added FTC/TDF before failure. Of 13 participants with data after intensification, 11 (85%) suppressed viral load to <400 copies/mL.

At virologic failure, 2/11 participants who were successfully sequenced had selected new resistance mutations (both had A71T and V82F). The overall mean CD4 count increase from baseline to week 24 was 107 cells/mm3. Overall 31 (25%) of participants experienced grade 3 or 4 toxicities. The most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 toxicities (9% of participants) were metabolic (mostly elevated lipids). Self reported adherence was high; at week 24, 83% of participants reported no missed doses.

The investigators concluded that LPV/r monotherapy showed promising preliminary activity as second-line HAART following failure of first-line NNRTI-containing regimens at 24 weeks. The lower bound of the 90% CI (81-92%) of the observed success rate (87%) was above 65%.

Torsak Bunupuradah and colleagues from the HIV STAR Study in Thailand looked at LPV/r monotherapy as second line but they also evaluated viral suppression to <50 copies/mL and included a comparison arm with triple therapy.

The STAR investigators enrolled 200 participants with viral load >1000 copies/mL on NNRTI-containing first line therapy. Participants were randomised to receive either LPV/r monotherapy ot LPV/r + TDF + 3TC.

Treatment failure was defined as viral load >400 copies/mL at >24 weeks. Participants meeting these criteria in the monotherapy arm received intensification with TDF + 3TC.

Participants in this study were about 60% men with a median age of 37 years, CD4 of 188 cells/mm3, and viral load of 4.1 log10 copies/mL.

Prior to switching, 92% of participants were receiving 3TC, 63% d4T, 23% AZT and 5% TDF. Nevirapine and efavirenz were received by 86% and 14% participants, respectively. Without significant differences between arms, 15% of participants had ≥3 TAMS, 82% had M184V/I, 6% had Q151M, and 7% had K65R.

By intent-to-treat analyses at 48 weeks, the proportion of patients with viral load <400 copies/mL the LPV/r monotherapy arm was 75% vs. 86% in the TDF/3TC/LPV/r arm, p=0.53. But, only 61% of the LPV/r monotherapy arm vs. 83% in TDF/3TC/LPV/r arm had a viral load <50 copies/mL, p<0.01.

Major PI mutations were detected in 1 of 2 LPV/r monotherapy and 0 of 3 TDF/3TC/LPV/r treated participants with genotype results following treatment failure. There was no significant difference in CD4 count increase between arms: 114 vs. 137 cells/mm3 in the LPV/r monotherapy and TDF/3TC/LPV/r arms respectively. One death (unrelated to study drugs) was reported in each arm. Serious adverse events were reported in two patients in the LPV/r monotherapy arm and seven patients in the TDF/3TC/LPV/r arm.

The investigators concluded that LPV/r monotherapy should be used with caution as a second-line option, particularly in settings where close viral load monitoring is not available.


Comment

The ongoing EARNEST Trial (NCT00988039) will answer the question whether or not lopinavir/r monotherapy is a sufficiently potent regimen compared to lopinavir/r combined with two NRTIs or raltegravir.

Results from this trial are expected in 2013.


References

  1. Bartlett J et al. A pilot study of LPV/r monotherapy following virologic failure of first-line NNRTI-containing regimens in resource-limited settings: The Week-24 primary analysis of ACTG 5230. 18th CROI, 27 February - 2 March 2011, Boston. Poster abstract 583.
  2. Bunupuradah T et al. Second-line LPV/r monotherapy was inferior to TDF/3TC/LPV/r in patients who failed NNRTI regimen: HIV STAR Study. 18th CROI, 27 February - 2 March 2011, Boston. Poster abstract 584.

Links to external websites are current at time of posting but not maintained.




This article was provided by HIV i-Base. It is a part of the publication HIV Treatment Bulletin. You can find this article online by typing this address into your Web browser:
http://www.thebodypro.com/content/63722/lopinavirr-monotherapy-used-as-second-line-therapy.html

General Disclaimer: The Body PRO is designed for educational purposes only and is not engaged in rendering medical advice or professional services. The information provided through The Body PRO should not be used for diagnosing or treating a health problem or a disease. It is not a substitute for professional care. If you have or suspect you may have a health problem, consult your health care provider.