OBJECTIVES: To examine how treatment adherence differences in ARTEMIS (96 week analysis) affected clinical outcome, and to assess factors impacting adherence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARTEMIS is a Phase III trial, in HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients, comparing efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (800/100 mg) versus lopinavir/ritonavir (800/200 mg total daily dose), each with a fixed-dose background tenofovir and emtricitabine regimen. Self-reported treatment adherence was assessed using the Modified Medication Adherence Self-Report Inventory (M-MASRI). In post-hoc analyses, mean adherence from weeks 4-96 was used to assess overall adherence for each patient, and transformed into a binary variable (>95% , adherent; < or = 95% , suboptimally adherent). RESULTS:Overall adherence was high: 83% of darunavir/ritonavir-treated patients and 78% of lopinavir/ritonavir-treated patients were >95% adherent. The difference in virological response rate for adherent versus suboptimally adherent patients was smaller for darunavir/ritonavir (6% difference: 82% versus 76%, P = 0.3312) than for lopinavir/ritonavir (25% difference: 78% versus 53%, P < 0.0001). In suboptimally adherent patients, a higher virological response rate was seen with darunavir/ritonavir (76%) versus lopinavir/ritonavir (53%) (P < 0.01). Suboptimally adherent patients (both treatment groups) reported more adverse events (AEs), including gastrointestinal AEs, than adherent patients. Darunavir/ritonavir had a lower rate of AEs, including gastrointestinal AEs, than lopinavir/ritonavir, in adherent and suboptimally adherent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal adherence had no significant effect on the virological response rate with once-daily darunavir/ritonavir treatment. In contrast, the lopinavir/ritonavir response rate was significantly reduced in suboptimally adherent patients compared with adherent patients. Once-daily darunavir/ritonavir resulted in a higher virological response rate in suboptimally adherent patients compared with lopinavir/ritonavir.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To examine how treatment adherence differences in ARTEMIS (96 week analysis) affected clinical outcome, and to assess factors impacting adherence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARTEMIS is a Phase III trial, in HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients, comparing efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (800/100 mg) versus lopinavir/ritonavir (800/200 mg total daily dose), each with a fixed-dose background tenofovir and emtricitabine regimen. Self-reported treatment adherence was assessed using the Modified Medication Adherence Self-Report Inventory (M-MASRI). In post-hoc analyses, mean adherence from weeks 4-96 was used to assess overall adherence for each patient, and transformed into a binary variable (>95% , adherent; < or = 95% , suboptimally adherent). RESULTS: Overall adherence was high: 83% of darunavir/ritonavir-treated patients and 78% of lopinavir/ritonavir-treated patients were >95% adherent. The difference in virological response rate for adherent versus suboptimally adherent patients was smaller for darunavir/ritonavir (6% difference: 82% versus 76%, P = 0.3312) than for lopinavir/ritonavir (25% difference: 78% versus 53%, P < 0.0001). In suboptimally adherent patients, a higher virological response rate was seen with darunavir/ritonavir (76%) versus lopinavir/ritonavir (53%) (P < 0.01). Suboptimally adherent patients (both treatment groups) reported more adverse events (AEs), including gastrointestinal AEs, than adherent patients. Darunavir/ritonavir had a lower rate of AEs, including gastrointestinal AEs, than lopinavir/ritonavir, in adherent and suboptimally adherent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal adherence had no significant effect on the virological response rate with once-daily darunavir/ritonavir treatment. In contrast, the lopinavir/ritonavir response rate was significantly reduced in suboptimally adherent patients compared with adherent patients. Once-daily darunavir/ritonavir resulted in a higher virological response rate in suboptimally adherent patients compared with lopinavir/ritonavir.
Authors: Angela M Bengtson; Brian W Pence; Richard Moore; Matthew J Mimiaga; William Christopher Mathews; Amy Heine; Bradley N Gaynes; Sonia Napravnik; Katerina Christopoulos; Heidi M Crane; Michael J Mugavero Journal: AIDS Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Paul E Sax; Camlin Tierney; Ann C Collier; Eric S Daar; Katie Mollan; Chakra Budhathoki; Catherine Godfrey; Nasreen C Jahed; Laurie Myers; David Katzenstein; Awny Farajallah; James F Rooney; Belinda Ha; William C Woodward; Judith Feinberg; Karen Tashima; Robert L Murphy; Margaret A Fischl Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Anita J Brogan; Erik Smets; Josephine A Mauskopf; Sarah A L Manuel; Ines Adriaenssen Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Jessica E Haberer; Nicholas Musinguzi; Yap Boum; Mark J Siedner; A Rain Mocello; Peter W Hunt; Jeffrey N Martin; David R Bangsberg Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Shilpa Viswanathan; Amy C Justice; G Caleb Alexander; Todd T Brown; Neel R Gandhi; Ian R McNicholl; David Rimland; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas; Lisa P Jacobson Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2015-08-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Elvin H Geng; C Bradley Hare; James O Kahn; Vivek Jain; Tracy Van Nunnery; Katerina A Christopoulos; Steven G Deeks; Monica Gandhi; Diane V Havlir Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 9.079