Publication: A randomized comparison of second-line lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus tenofovir/lamivudine/lopinavir/ritonavir in patients failing NNRTI regimens: The HIV STAR study
dc.contributor.author | Torsak Bunupuradah | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Ploenchan Chetchotisakd | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Jintanat Ananworanich | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Warangkana Munsakul | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Supunnee Jirajariyavej | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Pacharee Kantipong | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Wisit Prasithsirikul | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Somnuek Sungkanuparph | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Chureeratana Bowonwatanuwong | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Virat Klinbuayaem | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Stephen J. Kerr | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Jiratchaya Sophonphan | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Sorakij Bhakeecheep | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Bernard Hirschel | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Kiat Ruxrungtham | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | The HIV Netherlands Australia Thailand Research Collaboration | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Khon Kaen University | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | SEARCH | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Chulalongkorn University | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Bangkok Metropolitan Administration | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Taksin Hospital | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Chiangrai Prachanukroh Hospital | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Bamrasnaradura Infectious Disease Institute | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Mahidol University | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Chonburi Regional Hospital | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Sanpatong Hospital | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | University of New South Wales (UNSW) Australia | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | National Health Security Office | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Universite de Geneve | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-06-11T04:58:37Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-06-11T04:58:37Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2012-12-10 | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Background: Data informing the use of boosted protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy as second-line treatment are limited. There are also no randomized trials addressing treatment options after failing first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-regimens. Methods: HIV-infected subjects ≥18 years, with HIV RNA≥1,000 copies/ml while using NNRTI plus 2 NRTIs, and naive to PIs were randomized to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 400/100 mg twice daily monotherapy (mono-LPV/r) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) once daily plus lamivudine (3TC) twice daily plus LPV/r 400/100 mg twice daily (TDF/3TC/LPV/r) at nine sites in Thailand. The primary outcome was time-weighted area under curve (TWAUC) change in HIV RNA over 48 weeks. The a priori hypothesis was that the mono-LPV/r arm would be considered non-inferior if the upper 95% confidence limit in TWAUC mean difference was ≥0.5 log 10 copies/ml. Results: The intention-to-treat (ITT) population comprised 195 patients (mono-LPV/r n=98 and TDF/3TC/LPV/r n=97): male 58%, baseline mean (sd) age of 38 (7) years, CD4 + T-cell count of 204 (135) cells/mm 3 and HIV RNA of 4.1 (0.6) log 10 copies/ml. The majority had HIV-1 recombinant CRF01-AE infection, and thymidine analogue mutation (TAM)-2 was 3x more common than TAM-1. At 48 weeks, the difference in TWAUC HIV RNA between arms was 0.15 (95% CI -0.04, 0.33) log 10 copies/ml, consistent with our definition of non-inferiority. However, the proportion with HIV RNA < 50 copies/ml was significantly lower in the mono-LPV/r arm: 61% versus 83% (ITT, P < 0.01). Baseline HIV RNA≥5 log 10 copies/ml (P < 0.001) and mono-LPV/r use (P=0.003) were predictors of virological failure. Baseline genotypic sensitivity scores ≥2 and TAM-2 were associated with better virological control in subjects treated with the TDF-containing regimen. Conclusions: In PI-naive patients failing NNRTI-based first-line HAART, mono-LPV/r had a significantly lower proportion of patients with HIV RNA < 50 copies/ml compared to the TDF/3TC/LPV/r treatment. Thus, mono-LPV/r should not be recommended as a second-line option. ©2012 International Medical Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Antiviral Therapy. Vol.17, No.7 (2012), 1351-1361 | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.3851/IMP2443 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 20402058 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 13596535 | en_US |
dc.identifier.other | 2-s2.0-84867636454 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/14418 | |
dc.rights | Mahidol University | en_US |
dc.rights.holder | SCOPUS | en_US |
dc.source.uri | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84867636454&origin=inward | en_US |
dc.subject | Medicine | en_US |
dc.subject | Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics | en_US |
dc.title | A randomized comparison of second-line lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus tenofovir/lamivudine/lopinavir/ritonavir in patients failing NNRTI regimens: The HIV STAR study | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
mu.datasource.scopus | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84867636454&origin=inward | en_US |