Raltegravir Lovefest, Vienna Edition: AIDS 2010 Studies Explore Various Strategies for Use
July 20, 2010
Myles is the editorial director of TheBody.com and TheBodyPRO.com.
The first set of scientific presentations at AIDS 2010 brought us some new research on raltegravir (Isentress), a study on raltegravir and some new data on ... let me see here ... ah, yes! Raltegravir! How could I forget.
Five presentations comprised the conference's opening set of oral abstract presentations; of them, three focused on various strategies for the use of raltegravir, currently the only integrase inhibitor on the market. (Of the other two presentations, one was devoted to a competing integrase inhibitor in the pipeline; the other discussed TBR-652, a CCR5 antagonist with potential anti-inflammatory properties.) In quick-shot summary, the studies found:
In less-quick summary:
Raltegravir vs. Truvada (PROGRESS M10-336)
The PROGRESS study results were presented by Jacques Reynes, M.D. The study involved 206 antiretroviral-naive people (about 85% male and 75% white, with an average age of about 39 years) with an HIV-1 viral load above 1,000 copies/mL. (People of all CD4+ cell counts were eligible.) About half the group was randomized to receive 400 mg/100 mg Kaletra with 400 mg raltegravir, both taken twice daily. The other half received the same Kaletra dose along with 300 mg/200 mg of Truvada once daily. This will ultimately be a 96-week study, but 48-week efficacy results were presented here.
I should note that for readers in wealthy countries, what's noteworthy here is the head-to-head comparison of these two drugs, not the regimens of which they were a part. Kaletra isn't prescribed nearly as much as first-line therapy in rich countries as it used to be just a few years ago; it's been pushed out of that market a bit by other drugs that are tied to fewer side effects, and is no longer on the preferred list of drugs in the official U.S. guidelines. It's still pretty heavily used in developing countries, though.
Back to the core results: Discontinuations were similar between both arms (around 10%), with side effects or virologic failure accounting for an extremely small number. Through 48 weeks, a virtually identical proportion of people (around 84%) in each arm achieved the study's primary endpoint, which was to achieve a viral load below 40 copies/mL (using an intent-to-treat, time-to-loss-of-virologic-response analysis). People in the raltegravir arm achieved that below-40 mark much faster than people in the Truvada arm, however: It took 24 weeks for 75% of people to reach sub-40 levels on the Truvada arm, but just 8 weeks for the same thing to happen on the raltegravir arm. Given that the rate of CD4+ cell increase was nearly identical between both arms, I think we could debate whether there's much clinical relevance to getting undetectable more quickly on raltegravir than Truvada. Only one person in each arm developed a new mutation during the course of the study (one raltegravir mutation and one emtricitabine mutation).
Side effect numbers were similar overall between the two arms, although diarrhea appeared to occur more frequently in the Truvada arm (Reynes said the difference was not statistically significant) and lipid effects (specifically total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides) appeared worse on the raltegravir arm, a bit of an odd finding given that a study presented last year found raltegravir's effect on lipids to be modest at best. (In fielding a question on this finding from the audience, Reynes suggested that tenofovir's lipid-lowering effects may account for the statistical significance of the lipid difference between the two arms -- which is a fair point, but doesn't get around the fact that abnormally high lipid levels were reported more often on the raltegravir arm.) Creatinine phosphate levels were also much more likely to be elevated (13%) among people on the raltegravir arm. Reynes noted that the 96-week results will include breakdowns that further explore lipid issues, as well as adherence.
The upshot here is that, overall, both drugs appeared to be fine options for first-line therapy -- which is nice to hear, since both drugs are currently listed as preferred antiretrovirals in U.S. guidelines. Meanwhile, the NRTI-sparing regimen of Kaletra plus raltegravir performed as well as the NRTI-rich regimen of Kaletra plus Truvada, with the exception of some disparate side-effect blips. That's also nice news, but as I mentioned earlier, neither regimen is considered ideal first-line therapy; regimens based on atazanavir (Reyataz), darunavir (Prezista) or efavirenz (Sustiva, Stocrin) should probably be considered before turning to Kaletra.
This article was provided by TheBody.com. It is a part of the publication The XVIII International AIDS Conference.
Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)