Tipranavir, the new protease inhibitor under development by
Boehringer-Ingelheim, is active against HIV that is resistant to all
currently licensed protease inhibitors, according to results of a randomised
phase II dose finding study presented last week at the Tenth Conference on
Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston.
The study also suggests that, as with T-20, the time for
salvage with tipranavir will be earlier rather than later, emphasising the need
for physicians to pay attention to the timing of treatment switches and the
combination of new agents that can be assembled.
The results were derived from BI 1182.52, in which 216
patients were randomised in 1:1:1 ratio to either:
- Tipranavir/ritonavir
500mg/100mg twice daily
- Tipranavir/ritonavir
500/200mg twice daily
- Tipranavir/ritonavir
750/200mg twice daily
Patients replaced their existing PI with one of these doses
for 14 days to assess the antiviral impact of tipranavir as a single agent,
after which the background regimen was changed based on the results of
genotypic resistance testing. Follow-up of a further 14 days was conducted to
assess safety.
Patients were eligible to join the study if they had
experienced failure of at least two protease inhibitors, had viral load above
1,000 copies/ml and one or more of the
following primary PI mutations from the group 30N, 46I/L, 48V, 50V,
82A/F/L/T, 84V, or 90M, but no more than one of 82L/T,
84V, or 90M.
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>The median CD4 cell count
at baseline was 153 cells/mm3 and
the median viral load 4.53 log10 copies/ml (approximately 32,000 copies/ml).
Baseline resistance in BI 1182.52
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:white'>Agent
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:white'>% with
genotypic resistance
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:white'>Phenotype
(fold-loss of susceptibility compared to wild type
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:white'>Effect of 3
UPAMs** on baseline susceptibility
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>Tipranavir
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>N/a*
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> style="mso-spacerun: yes">
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> style="mso-spacerun: yes">
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>Lopinavir
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>27%
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>76.5
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>102.8
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>Amprenavir
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>60%
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> style="mso-spacerun: yes">
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> style="mso-spacerun: yes">
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>Saquinavir
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>66%
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> style="mso-spacerun: yes">
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> style="mso-spacerun: yes">
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>Nelfinavir
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>94%
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>12.2
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> style="mso-spacerun: yes">
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>Indinavir
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>85%
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>36.8
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> style="mso-spacerun: yes">
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>Ritonavir
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>85%
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>94.2
|
style='font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> style="mso-spacerun: yes">
|
style='font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>*the
genotypic profile associated with loss of susceptibility to tipranavir has not
been defined
style='text-shadow:none'>**UPAMS (Universal Protease-Associated Mutations) are
defined as mutations at codons L33I/V/F, V82A/F/L/T, I84V or L90M.
Results
The tipranavir/ritonavir 500/200mg dose was selected to go
forward into phase III studies based on pharmacokinetic, safety and virological
results. Investigators had selected a target Cmin (trough level) ten
times higher than the IC90 (the amount of drug needed to inhibit 90%
of virus replication) for protease-inhibitor resistant HIV (20 micromolar).
79% of the 500/200mg group and 77% of the 750/200mg group
achieved a morning Cmin greater than 20 micromolar, compared to 48% in the
500/100mg group, and the least interpatient variability was seen in the
500/200mg group.
Discontinuations in the 750/200mg group were far more
frequent than in the 500/200mg group after 24 weeks follow-up (15.5 vs 5.6%),
and fewer grade 3 and 4 adverse events and liver enzyme elevations were seen at
this dose.
Day 14 results by baseline resistance
profile
Number of mutations
|
style='color:white'>TPV/r style='color:white'>500/100
|
style='color:white'>TPV/r style='color:white'>500/200
|
style='color:white'>TPV/r style='color:white'>750/200
|
style='color:white'>Total
|
||||
|
n
|
style='font-size:9.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:white'>VL(log10)
|
n
|
VL
|
n
|
VL
|
N
|
median
|
0
|
5
|
-1.32
|
0
|
-
|
4
|
-1.19
|
9
|
-1.32
|
1
|
19
|
-1.21
|
23
|
-1.15
|
30
|
-1.25
|
72
|
-1.22
|
2
|
36
|
-0.78
|
24
|
-1.40
|
19
|
-1.24
|
79
|
-0.97
|
3
|
13
|
-0.19
|
21
|
-0.33
|
16
|
-0.54
|
50
|
-0.32
|
When analysed by the number of baseline UPAMs, successful
virologic response was clearly associated with two or fewer UPAMs, a finding
consistent with the observation that a twofold or greater reduction in
susceptibility compared to wild-type confers a reduced response to tipranavir.
These findings raise the question of whether tipranavir will
be able to salvage treatment failure associated with loss of susceptibility to
lopinavir, and clearly this will be an important issue for phase III studies.
Another question raised is when it might be best to use T-20
in patients experiencing treatment failure. Given that the results of the TORO
1 and 2 studies showed that the presence of lopinavir in the optimised
background regimen was associated with a -0.8 log viral reduction over and
above the effect of T-20, physicians will be particularly interested in the potential for combining lopinavir and tipranavir with T-20 when tipranavir becomes available through compassionate release (probably in early 2004). Drug
interaction and efficacy studies for lopinavir and tipranavir, which will take place alongside the Resist 1 and 2 studies, will be keenly awaited. The studies will look at interactions between tipranavir and lopinavir, amprenavir or indinavir, depending on baseline susceptibility, in patients who do not qualify to join the Resist 1 or 2 studies.
Further information on this website
References
Cooper D et al. Baseline phenotypic susceptibility to
Tipranavir/ritonavir (TPV/r) is retained in isolates from patients with
multiple-protease inhibitor (PI-experience) (BI 1182-52). style="mso-spacerun: yes">
Opportunistic Infections, Boston, abstract 596, 2003.
Gathe J et al. Tipranavir/ritonavir demonstrates potent
efficacy in multiple protease inhibitor experienced patients: BI 1182.52.
Tenth Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Boston, abstract
179, 2003.
Yeni P et al. Corelation of viral load reduction and
plasma levels in multiple protease inhibitor experienced patients taking
tipranavir/ritonavir in a phase IIb trial. Tenth Conference on Retroviruses
and Opportunistic Infections, Boston, abstract 528, 2003.