Atazanavir plus ritonavir or saquinavir, and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients experiencing multiple virological failures

Objective: To evaluate atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/RTV) (300/100mg) once daily, atazanavir/saquinavir (ATV/SQV) (400/1200 mg) once daily, and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) (400/100 mg) twice daily, each with tenofovir (300 mg) once daily and a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor in treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients. Methods: Randomized, open-label, 48-week multicenter trial of 358 randomized adult patients who had failed two or more prior HAART regimens with baseline HIV RNA >= 1000 copies/ml and CD4 cell count >= 50 x 106 cells/l. Results: The primary efficacy endpoint [plasma HIV RNA reduction assessed by time-averaged difference (TAD)] was similar for ATV/RTV and LPV/RTV [TAD 0.13; 97.5% confidence interval, -0.12 to 0.39] at 48 weeks. Mean reductions from baseline for ATV/RTV and LPV/RTV were comparable at 1.93 and 1.87 log(10) copies/ml, respectively. Mean CD4 cell count increases were 110 and 121 x 10(6) cells/l for ATV/RTV, and LPV/RTV, respectively. The efficacy of ATV/SQV was lower than LPV/RTV by both these parameters. Declines in total cholesterol and fasting triglycericles were greater with ATV/RTV and ATV/SQV than with LPV/RTV (P <= 0.005). Lipids in the LPV/RTV arm at week 48 generally increased from baseline. Lipid-lowering agents were used more frequently in the LPV/RTV arm than in the ATV arms (P < 0.05 versus ATV/RTV), as were antidiarrheal agents (P < 0.04 versus both ATV treatments). No new or unique safety findings emerged. Conclusions: ATV boosted with RTV is as effective and well tolerated as LPV/RTV in treatment-experienced patients, with a more favorable impact on serum lipids. Pharmacokinetically enhanced ATV provides a suitable choice for therapy of treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients. (c) 2005 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.