Lisa K Naeger1, Kimberly A Struble. 1. Division of Antiviral Products, Center for New Drug Evaluation, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993, USA. lisa.naeger@fda.hhs.gov
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the virologic response rates of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir based on baseline genotype and phenotype. METHODS: Resistance analyses were performed on a Bristol-Myers Squibb-sponsored study comparing the safety and efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir to lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced subjects at 48 weeks. Analyses evaluated virologic response based on the presence of baseline primary protease inhibitor mutations and baseline susceptibility. RESULTS: Less than 30% of atazanavir/ritonavir-treated patients were responders if substitutions at positions M46, G73, I84 or L90 were present in their HIV at baseline. In comparison, lopinavir/ritonavir response rates were less than 30% when protease substitutions at M46, I54, or I84 were present at baseline. The response rates were similar between atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir-treated subjects with zero to four baseline protease inhibitor mutations, but response rates were reduced if five or more baseline mutations were present: 0% for atazanavir/ritonavir compared with 28% for lopinavir/ritonavir. Baseline phenotype results showed that response rates were similar between atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir if shifts in susceptibility were zero to five, but response rates were lower if shifts were greater than five; 11% for atazanavir/ritonavir compared with 27% for lopinavir/ritonavir. CONCLUSIONS: Both type and number of baseline protease inhibitor mutations affected virologic response to atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced subjects. In addition, baseline phenotypic susceptibility could differentiate virologic response rates to the two drugs. These resistance analyses provide information on the likelihood of a virologic response to antiretroviral drugs based on baseline genotypic and phenotypic data, which is valuable to physicians and patients when choosing antiretroviral regimens.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess the virologic response rates of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir based on baseline genotype and phenotype. METHODS: Resistance analyses were performed on a Bristol-Myers Squibb-sponsored study comparing the safety and efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir to lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced subjects at 48 weeks. Analyses evaluated virologic response based on the presence of baseline primary protease inhibitor mutations and baseline susceptibility. RESULTS: Less than 30% of atazanavir/ritonavir-treated patients were responders if substitutions at positions M46, G73, I84 or L90 were present in their HIV at baseline. In comparison, lopinavir/ritonavir response rates were less than 30% when protease substitutions at M46, I54, or I84 were present at baseline. The response rates were similar between atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir-treated subjects with zero to four baseline protease inhibitor mutations, but response rates were reduced if five or more baseline mutations were present: 0% for atazanavir/ritonavir compared with 28% for lopinavir/ritonavir. Baseline phenotype results showed that response rates were similar between atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir if shifts in susceptibility were zero to five, but response rates were lower if shifts were greater than five; 11% for atazanavir/ritonavir compared with 27% for lopinavir/ritonavir. CONCLUSIONS: Both type and number of baseline protease inhibitor mutations affected virologic response to atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced subjects. In addition, baseline phenotypic susceptibility could differentiate virologic response rates to the two drugs. These resistance analyses provide information on the likelihood of a virologic response to antiretroviral drugs based on baseline genotypic and phenotypic data, which is valuable to physicians and patients when choosing antiretroviral regimens.
Authors: Ighovwerha Ofotokun; Anandi N Sheth; Sara E Sanford; Kirk A Easley; Neeta Shenvi; Kelly White; Molly E Eaton; Carlos Del Rio; Jeffrey L Lennox Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Maria E Cilento; Aaron B Reeve; Eleftherios Michailidis; Tatiana V Ilina; Eva Nagy; Hiroaki Mitsuya; Michael A Parniak; Philip R Tedbury; Stefan G Sarafianos Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Max Lataillade; Jennifer Chiarella; Rong Yang; Steven Schnittman; Victoria Wirtz; Jonathan Uy; Daniel Seekins; Mark Krystal; Marco Mancini; Donnie McGrath; Birgitte Simen; Michael Egholm; Michael Kozal Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lindsey L Wolf; Paul Ricketts; Kenneth A Freedberg; Hazel Williams-Roberts; Lisa R Hirschhorn; Kathleen Allen-Ferdinand; William R Rodriguez; Nomita Divi; Michael T Wong; Elena Losina Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: M M Santoro; A Bertoli; P Lorenzini; F Ceccherini-Silberstein; N Gianotti; C Mussini; C Torti; G Di Perri; G Barbarini; T Bini; S Melzi; P Caramello; R Maserati; P Narciso; V Micheli; A Antinori; C F Perno Journal: Infection Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Ravindra K Gupta; Arinder Kohli; Adele L McCormick; Greg J Towers; Deenan Pillay; Chris M Parry Journal: AIDS Date: 2010-07-17 Impact factor: 4.177