Sarah Lilian Pett1, Janaki Amin2, Andrejz Horban3, Jaime Andrade-Villanueva4, Marcelo Losso5, Norma Porteiro6, Juan Sierra Madero7, Waldo Belloso8, Elise Tu2, David Silk2, Anthony Kelleher9, Richard Harrigan10, Andrew Clark11, Wataru Sugiura12, Marcelo Wolff13, John Gill14, Jose Gatell15, Martin Fisher16, Amanda Clarke16, Kiat Ruxrungtham17, Thierry Prazuck18, Rolf Kaiser19, Ian Woolley20, Juan Alberto Arnaiz21, David Cooper9, Jürgen K Rockstroh22, Patrick Mallon23, Sean Emery2. 1. The Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology Clinical Research Group, Infection and Population Health, University College London, United Kingdom. 2. The Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 3. Wojewodzki Szpital Zakazny Centrum Diagnostyki i Terapii AIDS, Warsaw, Poland. 4. Hospital Civil de Guadalajara "Fray Antonio Alcalde," Jalisco, Mexico. 5. Hospital General de Agudos J M Ramos Mejia Fundación IBIS Coordinacion de Investigacion Clinica Academica en Latinoamerica. 6. Fundación Infectologia de Atencion Ambulatoria, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 7. Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Medicas y Nutriciòn Salvador Zubiran, Tlalpan, Mexico. 8. Fundación IBIS Coordinacion de Investigacion Clinica Academica en Latinoamerica Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Argentina. 9. The Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 10. British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, Canada. 11. ViiV Healthcare Ltd, London, United Kingdom. 12. Nagoya Medical Centre, Japan. 13. Fundacion Arriaran, Santiago, Chile. 14. Southern Alberta Clinic, Calgary, Canada. 15. Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Spain. 16. Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom. 17. HIV Netherlands, Australia, Thailand Research Collaboration, Bangkok. 18. Orleans Hospital (Centre Hospitalier Regional D'Orleans Orleans La Source), France. 19. Institut für Virologie, Cologne, Germany. 20. Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 21. Fundacion Clinic Spain Clinical Trials Unit, Barcelona. 22. Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Bonn, Germany. 23. Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alternative combination antiretroviral therapies in virologically suppressed human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients experiencing side effects and/or at ongoing risk of important comorbidities from current therapy are needed. Maraviroc (MVC), a chemokine receptor 5 antagonist, is a potential alternative component of therapy in those with R5-tropic virus. METHODS: The Maraviroc Switch Study is a randomized, multicenter, 96-week, open-label switch study in HIV type 1-infected adults with R5-tropic virus, virologically suppressed on aritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) plus double nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (2 N(t)RTI) backbone. Participants were randomized 1:2:2 to current combination antiretroviral therapy (control), or replacing the protease inhibitor (MVC + 2 N(t)RTI arm) or the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone (MVC + PI/r arm) with twice-daily MVC. The primary endpoint was the difference (switch minus control) in proportion with plasma viral load (VL) <200 copies/mL at 48 weeks. The switch arms were judged noninferior if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the primary endpoint was < -12% in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. RESULTS: The ITT population comprised 395 participants (control, n = 82; MVC + 2 N(t)RTI, n = 156; MVC + PI/r, n = 157). Baseline characteristics were well matched. At week 48, noninferior rates of virological suppression were observed in those switching away from a PI/r (93.6% [95% CI, -9.0% to 2.2%] and 91.7% [95% CI, -9.6% to 3.8%] with VL <200 and <50 copies/mL, respectively) compared to the control arm (97.6% and 95.1% with VL <200 and <50 copies/mL, respectively). In contrast, MVC + PI/r did not meet noninferiority bounds and was significantly inferior (84.1% [95% CI, -19.8% to -5.8%] and 77.7% [95% CI, -24.9% to -8.4%] with VL <200 and <50 copies/mL, respectively) to the control arm in the ITT analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These data support MVC as a switch option for ritonavir-boosted PIs when partnered with a 2-N(t)RTI backbone, but not as part of N(t)RTI-sparing regimens comprising MVC with PI/r. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01384682.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Alternative combination antiretroviral therapies in virologically suppressed human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infectedpatients experiencing side effects and/or at ongoing risk of important comorbidities from current therapy are needed. Maraviroc (MVC), a chemokine receptor 5 antagonist, is a potential alternative component of therapy in those with R5-tropic virus. METHODS: The Maraviroc Switch Study is a randomized, multicenter, 96-week, open-label switch study in HIV type 1-infected adults with R5-tropic virus, virologically suppressed on a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) plus double nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (2 N(t)RTI) backbone. Participants were randomized 1:2:2 to current combination antiretroviral therapy (control), or replacing the protease inhibitor (MVC + 2 N(t)RTI arm) or the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone (MVC + PI/r arm) with twice-daily MVC. The primary endpoint was the difference (switch minus control) in proportion with plasma viral load (VL) <200 copies/mL at 48 weeks. The switch arms were judged noninferior if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the primary endpoint was < -12% in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. RESULTS: The ITT population comprised 395 participants (control, n = 82; MVC + 2 N(t)RTI, n = 156; MVC + PI/r, n = 157). Baseline characteristics were well matched. At week 48, noninferior rates of virological suppression were observed in those switching away from a PI/r (93.6% [95% CI, -9.0% to 2.2%] and 91.7% [95% CI, -9.6% to 3.8%] with VL <200 and <50 copies/mL, respectively) compared to the control arm (97.6% and 95.1% with VL <200 and <50 copies/mL, respectively). In contrast, MVC + PI/r did not meet noninferiority bounds and was significantly inferior (84.1% [95% CI, -19.8% to -5.8%] and 77.7% [95% CI, -24.9% to -8.4%] with VL <200 and <50 copies/mL, respectively) to the control arm in the ITT analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These data support MVC as a switch option for ritonavir-boosted PIs when partnered with a 2-N(t)RTI backbone, but not as part of N(t)RTI-sparing regimens comprising MVC with PI/r. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01384682.
Authors: L P R Vandekerckhove; A M J Wensing; R Kaiser; F Brun-Vézinet; B Clotet; A De Luca; S Dressler; F Garcia; A M Geretti; T Klimkait; K Korn; B Masquelier; C F Perno; J M Schapiro; V Soriano; A Sönnerborg; A-M Vandamme; C Verhofstede; H Walter; M Zazzi; C A B Boucher Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: J Symons; L Vandekerckhove; R Paredes; C Verhofstede; R Bellido; E Demecheleer; P M van Ham; S F L van Lelyveld; A J Stam; D van Versendaal; M Nijhuis; A M J Wensing Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: J Macías; E Recio; M Márquez; C García; P Jiménez; D Merino; L Muñoz; J Pasquau; G Ojeda; P Bancalero; N Chueca; J A Pineda Journal: HIV Med Date: 2014-02-24 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: Jayvant Heera; Srinivas Valluri; Charles Craig; Annie Fang; Neal Thomas; Ralph Dan Meyer; James Demarest Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2014-11-02 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Daniel Chastain; Melissa Badowski; Emily Huesgen; Neha Sheth Pandit; Andrea Pallotta; Sarah Michienzi Journal: J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care Date: 2019 Jan-Dec
Authors: Daniel David; Eynat Kedem; Dan Turner; Itzchak Levy; Daniel G Elbirt; Eduardo Shahar; Valery Istumin; Orna Mor; Michal Chowers; Hila Elinav Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 3.240