Maraviroc Plus Atazanavir/r Without Nukes Versus Standard of Care: 48-Week Results
This is controversial due to the lower percentage of patients in the maraviroc arm reaching undetectable viral load <50 copies/mL at week 48 (75% vs. 84%, no between arm statistical data presented due to lack of power in the study size), higher rates of toxicity and the decision to enroll a larger phase 3 study with the same design. These differences were also seen at week 48 when stratified by baseline viral <100,000 (77% vs. 87%) and >100,000 (69% vs. 77%).
These trends were apparent in the interim 24-week results presented at the IAS 2010 in Vienna: viral suppression then was 80 vs. 89% together with increased side effects (ie 33% vs. 23% grade 3/4 including 26% vs. 13% hyperbilirubinaemia) in the maraviroc arm.2
A health economic interest in this study comes from the pharmacokinetic data supporting the use of half-dose (and therefore half-cost) maraviroc (patients are dosed at 150 mg daily when using atazanavir/r) and that in this combination maraviroc is only taken once daily.
Mean change from baseline in CD4 count at week 48 was similar with +215 vs. +226 cells/mm3 in the maraviroc vs. tenofovir/FTC arms respectively.
Grade 3/4 side effects were more frequent with maraviroc than tenofovir/FTC (18 vs. 11 patients) and these were mostly due to hyperbilirubinemia. Creatinine clearance was stable with maraviroc but decreased by a median -12 mL/min with tenofovir/FTC. Serious adverse events were similar (10 vs. 11 patients) with none related to assigned study drug.
A second presentation included an analysis of the results from patients who used 150 mg maraviroc with boosted PI, supporting the reduced dose compared to those using 300 mg twice-daily with either tipranavir or fosamprenavir in the maraviroc registrational trials.3
In summary, suppression to <50 copies/mL was reported in 45% vs. 47% in the 150 mg/boosted PI vs. 300 mg groups (vs. 16% for the placebo group) with a similar close relationship between doses for people starting in advanced disease with baseline viral load >100,000 copies/mL (38% vs. 39%) or CD4 counts <50 cells/mm3 (17% vs. 18%).
The limitations from low study numbers in phase 2 studies are important to remember when reviewing these results but it will be important to follow the phase 3 study of this dual therapy arm carefully. Some combinations that are less virologically effective perform better as switch options once people are stable on treatment.
A switch strategy, given the potential cost savings from the reduced dose of maraviroc might warrant a separate study.
Links to external websites are current at time of posting but not maintained.
This article was provided by HIV i-Base. It is a part of the publication HIV Treatment Bulletin. Visit HIV i-Base's website to find out more about their activities, publications and services.
Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)