Fall 2003/Winter 2004
CNA3005 was double-blind and placebo-controlled for dosing and number of pills, meaning that neither the 562 participants nor the investigators knew which combination individual participants were taking. These precautions tried to ensure that adherence issues wouldn't cloud the results since Crixivan is dosed every eight hours without food and requires drinking a lot of water while Ziagen is dosed every twelve hours with no food restrictions. By the end of 48 weeks, there was no significant difference in the percentage of people taking Ziagen with viral loads below 50 copies (40%) and those taking Crixivan (46%). But when the researchers looked at those trial participants whose viral loads were above 100,000 before starting treatment, they found that the Ziagen regimen was significantly less likely than the Crixivan regimen to bring viral loads down to below 50 copies (31% compared to 45%). These results suggest that the combination of Ziagen, Retrovir, and Epivir (and perhaps any triple-NRTI combination) is not for someone with a high viral load, particularly if it's above 100,000.
CNA3014 compared the same two regimens, but this trial was open-label, meaning that the 342 participants knew what they were taking. After 48 weeks, the two groups had similar results in terms of reducing viral load to below 50 copies regardless of whether the participants' viral loads were above or below 100,000 before starting treatment. In fact, the Ziagen group tended to do better than the Crixivan group in almost all respects. This may have been because adherence was much better in the Ziagen group -- 78% of the people taking the Ziagen/Combivir regimen reported being completely adherent compared to only 48% of those taking the much more complicated Crixivan/Combivir regimen. Although difficult to measure, the difference between the results of this trial and those of CNA3005 could be attributed to the discrepancies in adherence.
Unfortunately, early results from a large clinical trial called ACTG 5095 confirmed the results of CNA3005. In March 2003, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for ACTG 5095 stopped the Ziagen/Retrovir/Epivir arm of the study when participants on that regimen experienced pre-defined virologic failure earlier and more often than participants on the two study regimens that didn't include Ziagen. ACTG 5095 involved 1,147 participants and was designed to compare Ziagen/Retrovir/Epivir (taken as Trizivir) to the non-nucleoside, Sustiva (efavirenz), taken with Retrovir and Epivir to a regimen of all four drugs. This study, too, was for people who had never taken antiretrovirals before. It was double-blind and placebo-controlled for dosing and number of pills.
When the DSMB reviewed the results at 32 weeks, they found that 21% of the participants in the Trizivir arm had experienced virologic failure compared to 11% of the participants on the two Sustiva-containing regimens combined, a highly significant difference. This difference was seen in people who began treatment with viral loads above and below 100,000. Virologic failure was defined as having a viral load greater than 200 at least four months after starting treatment. The Trizivir arm of the trial was stopped and participants in that group were offered other treatment. The closing of this arm of the study doesn't necessarily mean that the combination of Ziagen/Retrovir/Epivir (or Trizivir) doesn't have an important role in HIV treatment, but its role might be more limited than initially thought.
Glaxo's focus on making Ziagen work as a part of the combination pill, Trizivir, has resulted in less attention to the study of Ziagen for other purposes. But Ziagen works well with many other anti-HIV medications and can be used effectively in a number of situations.
One possibility is to add Ziagen to a regimen that's working relatively well to get a better antiviral response -- a strategy called intensification. The CNA3002 study included 185 people who had been on treatment for at least three months and as long as three years. They had viral loads between 400 and 50,000 and an average CD4 count of 410. Most of the participants were on two-drug combinations before joining the trial. Everyone continued on their current regimens and added either Ziagen or a placebo. After 48 weeks, 25% of the participants on Ziagen had viral loads less than 400 copies compared to 6% of those on placebo. Looking just at the people who took Ziagen, 41% of those who started the trial with viral loads below 5,000 had viral loads less than 400 copies at the end of 48 weeks compared to 9% of those who started the trial with viral loads above 5,000.
There's also evidence that switching from a protease inhibitor (PI) to Ziagen may help reduce high lipid levels (triglycerides and cholesterol) caused by many PIs while still keeping virus levels low. CNA30017, a trial of 211 people on PI regimens, compared those who stayed on their regimens to those who switched their PI for Ziagen. At the beginning of the trial, everyone had viral loads below 50. After 48 weeks, more people who stayed on their PI experienced treatment failure than those who switched to Ziagen (23% vs. 12%, a statistically significant difference). Treatment failure was defined as having two consecutive viral loads above 400 or leaving the study for any reason, including side effects. The people who switched to Ziagen also experienced statistically significant decreases in triglycerides and cholesterol levels and improvements in lipoatrophy (fat loss) and central fat accumulation. Overall, in this trial, the switch to Ziagen provided some benefit without sacrificing the virologic success achieved by starting treatment with a protease inhibitor.
Ziagen may also be useful as a replacement for Zerit (d4T) in the regimens of people who are experiencing lipoatrophy, an increasingly recognized side effect of Zerit. A number of small studies have shown that replacing Zerit with Ziagen may slow down the rate of fat loss -- or even reverse it -- while maintaining low or undetectable viral loads.
Some people may experience a hypersensitivity reaction without recognizing it, either because they stopped the drug for some other reason before symptoms of the reaction occurred or were diagnosed or because the initial symptoms were diagnosed as something else such as an acute respiratory disease (even the flu). For these reasons, if you took Ziagen once for even a short time and suffered no noticeable hypersensitivity reaction, be aware if you decide to start the drug again -- it could be the same as restarting the drug after experiencing a hypersensitivity reaction.
Starting Ziagen at the same time as you start another drug that can cause a rash or other similar systemic reaction may make it more difficult to diagnose a hypersensitivity reaction to Ziagen. Examples of such drugs include sulfa-based antibiotics such as Bactrim and Septra, used to prevent and treat PCP (pneumocystis pneumonia), the non-nucleosides Sustiva (efavirenz) or Viramune (nevirapine), and the protease inhibitor Agenerase (amprenavir).
The mutations required to make your virus resistant to Ziagen are complex. If you took Retrovir for a long time by itself, later took Epivir, and developed resistance to both, it's unlikely that you'll benefit from Ziagen. Epivir resistance combined with high-level Retrovir resistance (three or more resistance mutations) makes Ziagen ineffective. People who have resistance to Epivir but not to Retrovir may still benefit from Ziagen, though. If you develop a particular mutation (K65R) that makes your virus resistant to Ziagen, you probably won't benefit from Viread (tenofovir), Videx (ddI), or Hivid (ddC) because of cross-resistance.
Ziagen is a strong drug with lots of potential. It may be useful as one of the two NRTIs in a starting regimen, particularly with Epivir. It may be useful as an addition to a regimen that's already working well, to intensify the anti-HIV effect and decrease viral loads further. And it may be useful as a replacement for a protease inhibitor, the NRTI Zerit, or even a non-nucleoside, once viral load is under control. Preliminary data suggest that these uses offer some benefit, but more and larger studies are needed to better understand when it's most valuable.
FDA Approval: 1998
Manufacturer: GlaxoSmithKline
Patient Assistance Program: 866-728-4368