J.-G. Baril

BACKGROUND: APV102002 was an open-label study comparing a dual-boosted HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) [fosamprenavir/lopinavir/ritonavir (FPV/LPV/RTV; 1400 mg/533 mg/133 mg twice daily)] and a high dose of FPV/RTV 1400 mg/100 mg twice daily (HD-FPV/RTV) versus the standard FPV/RTV 700 mg/100 mg twice-daily (STD-FPV/RTV) regimen for 24 weeks. METHODS: Adult patients with prior failure to two or more PI-based regimens and on a failing PI regimen were randomized to STD-FPV/RTV (n = 24), HD-FPV/RTV (n = 25) or FPV/LPV/RTV (n = 25). The primary aim was to test week 24 superiority of HD-FPV/RTV and FPV/LPV/RTV over STD-FPV/RTV as measured by plasma HIV-1 RNA average area under the curve minus baseline (AAUCMB). RESULTS: There was no difference in the week 24 AAUCMB between the regimens. The proportion of patients with <50 copies/mL of plasma HIV RNA was 21%, 24% and 20%, respectively, by time to loss of virological response (TLOVR) analysis. High baseline drug resistance provided some explanation for the low efficacy. A lower baseline background drug resistance and higher fosamprenavir genotypic inhibitory quotient led to better antiviral responses. The plasma amprenavir trough concentartion (C(tau)) was 49% higher in the HD-FPV/RTV arm than in the STD-FPV/RTV arm and similar in the FPV/LPV/RTV and STD-FPV/RTV arms. The plasma lopinavir C(tau) was similar to historical data with standard LPV/RTV 400 mg/100 mg twice daily. All regimens were relatively well tolerated, although diarrhoea was more frequent in the HD-FPV/RTV and FPV/LPV/RTV arms, and hypertriglyceridaemia and increased total cholesterol were more common in the FPV/LPV/RTV arm. CONCLUSIONS: While the strategies of higher dose FPV/RTV and dual FPV/LPV/RTV were relevant at the time of study initiation, new therapies for antiretroviral-experienced patients make such strategies of limited interest. In addition, this study failed to demonstrate antiviral superiority of the HD-FPV/RTV or FPV/LPV/RTV regimen over the STD-FPV/RTV twice-daily regimen in highly treatment-experienced patients.

BACKGROUND: To investigate antiviral potency of the 2-drug regimen (2DR) dolutegravir plus lamivudine vs the 3-drug regimen (3DR) dolutegravir plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine, we performed a post-hoc analysis assessing antiviral response rates in the phase III GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 studies by baseline viral load (VL). SETTING: One hundred ninety-two centers in 21 countries. METHODS: Treatment-naive HIV-1-infected participants with screening VL ≤500,000 copies/mL were randomized 1:1 to once-daily dolutegravir plus lamivudine or dolutegravir plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. Median change from baseline was determined for log10-transformed VL in the overall study population and the subpopulation with baseline VL >100,000 copies/mL. Proportion of participants achieving plasma VL <50 copies/mL (Snapshot algorithm) or <40 copies/mL (Abbott RealTime HIV-1 assay) and target not detected was assessed through week 48 by baseline VL. Time to viral suppression was determined (nonparametric Kaplan-Meier method). RESULTS: For 293 participants with baseline VL >100,000 copies/mL, median change from baseline at week 4 was -3.38 and -3.40 log10 copies/mL in the 2DR and 3DR groups, respectively; reduction was sustained throughout 48 weeks. Time to VL <50 copies/mL was longer in participants with baseline VL >100,000 copies/mL than the overall study population (57 [week 8] vs 29 days [week 4]) and similar between the 2DR and 3DR groups. Proportion of participants with VL <50 or <40 copies/mL and target not detected was similar between groups, irrespective of baseline VL, at all tested visits throughout 48 weeks. CONCLUSION: Dolutegravir plus lamivudine demonstrates high antiviral potency in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected individuals across baseline VL strata.