Ritonavir‐Boosted Tipranavir Demonstrates Superior Efficacy to Ritonavir‐Boosted Protease Inhibitors in Treatment‐Experienced HIV‐Infected Patients: 24‐Week Results of the RESIST‐2 Trial
1Fundación Huésped, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 2Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 3Hospital Juan I Menchaca, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Guadalajara‐Jalisco, Mexico; 4Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Ridgefield, Connecticut; 5Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Germany, 6Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH and Co. KG, Ingelheim, and 7Auguste‐Viktoria Klinikum, Berlin, Germany; 8Vila‐Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; 9Hôpital de la Pitié‐Salpétrière, Paris, France; 10Hôpital Universitaire St. Pierre, Bruxelles, Belgium; 11Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; 12Andreas Syngros Hospital, Athens, Greece; 13Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain; and 14Hospital de Santa Maria, Lisbon, Portugal
Background.
Tipranavir, a novel protease inhibitor, has demonstrated antiviral activity against protease inhibitor–resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV‐1) isolates. The Randomized Evaluation of Strategic Intervention in multi‐drug reSistant patients with Tipranavir (RESIST‐2) trial is an ongoing, open‐label, phase III trial comparing ritonavir‐boosted tipranavir (TPV/r) plus an optimized background regimen with an individually optimized, ritonavir‐boosted protease inhibitor in treatment‐experienced, HIV‐1–infected patients.
Methods.
Patients at 171 sites in Europe and Latin America who had received
2 previous protease inhibitor regimens, had triple‐antiretroviral class experience, had an HIV‐1 RNA level
1000 copies/mL, and had genotypically demonstrated primary protease inhibitor resistance were eligible. After genotypic resistance tests were performed, a protease inhibitor and optimized background regimen were selected before randomization. Patients were randomized to receive either TPV/r or comparator protease inhibitor–ritonavir (CPI/r) and were stratified on the basis of preselected protease inhibitor and enfuvirtide use. Treatment response was defined as a confirmed HIV‐1 load reduction
1 log10 less than the baseline value without a treatment change at week 24.
Results.
A total of 863 patients were randomized and treated. At baseline, the mean HIV‐1 load was 4.73 log10 copies/mL, and the mean CD4+ cell count was 218 cells/mm3. The preplanned 24‐week efficacy analyses of 539 patients demonstrated treatment response rates of 41% in the TPV/r arm and 14.9% in the CPI/r arm (intent‐to‐treat analysis;
). The mean CD4+ cell count increased by 51 cells/mm3 in the TPV/r arm and by 18 cells/mm3 in the CPI/r arm. The most common adverse events were mild‐to‐moderate diarrhea, nausea, and headache. Grade 3 or greater elevations in serum transaminase, cholesterol, and triglyceride levels were more frequent in the TPV/r arm.
Conclusions.
TPV/r had superior antiviral activity and increased immunologic benefits, compared with CPI/r, at week 24 among treatment‐experienced patients infected with multidrug‐resistant HIV‐1.
Received 20 February 2006; accepted 31 July 2006; electronically published 17 October 2006.
-
(See the article by Gathe et al. on pages 1337–46)
Cited by
Online publication date: 18-Nov-2008.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Oct-2008.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 18-Aug-2008.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Aug-2008.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Jun-2008.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 15-May-2008.
Online publication date: 15-May-2008.
Online publication date: 1-Feb-2008.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Jan-2008.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Nov-2007.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Sep-2007.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-May-2007.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 15-Nov-2006.
-
Members of the study group are listed at the end of the text.



