Literature DB >> 14583846

Clinical impact of double protease inhibitor boosting with lopinavir/ritonavir and amprenavir as part of salvage antiretroviral therapy.

Mona Loutfy1, Janet Raboud, Courtney Thompson, Alice Tseng, Zainab Abdurrahman, Colin Kovacs, Anita Rachlis, Elizabeth Phillips, Gary Rubin, Kevin Gough, Sharon Walmsley.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Double protease inhibitor (PI) boosting is being explored as a new strategy in salvage antiretroviral (ARV) therapy. However, if a negative drug interaction leads to decreased drug levels of either or both PIs, double PI boosting could lead to decreased virologic response. A negative drug interaction has been described between amprenavir (APV) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r). This observational cohort study assessed the virologic impact of the addition of APV to a salvage ARV regimen, which also contains LPV/r, compared to a regimen containing LPV/r alone.
METHOD: Patients initiated on a salvage ARV regimen that included LPV/r obtained from the expanded access program in Toronto, Canada, were evaluated. APV (600-1,200 mg bid) was added at the discretion of the treating physician.
RESULTS: Using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, we found that the addition of APV to a LPV/r-containing salvage regimen was not significantly associated with time to virologic suppression (< 50 copies/mL; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, p =.12) or with time to virologic rebound (adjusted HR = 1.46, p =.34). Those patients who received higher doses of APV had an increased chance of virologic suppression (p =.03). In a subset of 27 patients, the median LPV C(trough) was significantly lower in patients receiving APV (p =.04), and the median APV C(trough) was reduced compared to reported controls.
CONCLUSION: Our data do not support an additional benefit in virologic reduction of double boosting with APV and LPV/r relative to LPV/r alone in salvage ARV therapy. Our study's limitations include its retrospective nature and the imbalance between the two groups potentially confounding the results. Although these factors were adjusted for in the multivariate analysis, a prospective randomized controlled trial is warranted to confirm our findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14583846     DOI: 10.1310/7LYW-GQFF-WPRQ-K3QW

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HIV Clin Trials        ISSN: 1528-4336


  2 in total

1.  Outcomes of patients on dual-boosted PI regimens: experience of the Swiss HIV cohort study.

Authors:  Regina B Osih; Patrick Taffé; Martin Rickenbach; Angèle Gayet-Ageron; Luigia Elzi; Christoph Fux; Milos Opravil; Enos Bernasconi; Patrick Schmid; Huldrych F Günthard; Matthias Cavassini
Journal:  AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 2.205

2.  Virologic efficacy of boosted double versus boosted single protease inhibitor therapy.

Authors:  Maya L Petersen; Yue Wang; Mark J van der Laan; Soo-Yon Rhee; Robert W Shafer; W Jeffrey Fessel
Journal:  AIDS       Date:  2007-07-31       Impact factor: 4.177

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.