ART Treatment. ART Treatment

Similar documents
BHIVA Best of CROI Feedback Meetings. London Birmingham North West England Cardiff Gateshead Edinburgh

The results of the ARTEN study. Vicente Soriano Hospital Carlos III, Madrid, Spain

12th European AIDS Conference / EACS ARV Therapies and Therapeutic Strategies A CME Newsletter

Individual Study Table Referring to the Dossier SYNOPSIS. Final Clinical Study Report for Study AI424138

Switching ARV Regimens: Managing Toxicity and Improving Tolerability; Switches & Class-Sparing Approaches

Perspectivesconcernantles InhibiteursNon Nucléosidiquesde la Transcriptase Inverse (INNTI)

VIKING STUDIES Efficacy and safety of dolutegravir in treatment-experienced subjects

Individual Study Table Referring to the Dossier SYNOPSIS. Final Clinical Study Report for Study AI424136

The next generation of ART regimens

Are the current doses of ARV correct. Richard Elion MD Associate Adjunct Clinical Professor of Medicine Johns Hopkins School of Medicine

The BATAR Study Boosted Atazanavir Truvada vs. Atazanavir Raltegravir

Abstract PS8/2. Double-blind treatment phase D/C/F/TAF. + matching D/C + F/TDF placebo D/C/F/TAF. D/C + F/TDF + matching D/C/F/TAF placebo

Bon Usage des Antirétroviraux dans l Infection par le VIH

Management of Treatment-Experienced Patients: New Agents and Rescue Strategies. Joel E. Gallant, MD, MPH Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

How to best manage HIV patient?

C Orkin, 1 G Moyle, 2 M Fisher, 3 H Wang, 4 J Ewan 4 and ROCKET I Study Group. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK;

SINGLE. Efficacy and safety of dolutegravir (DTG) in treatment-naïve subjects

Congress report: XV Congreso Panamericano De Infectología the PROGRESS Study

STRIBILD (aka. The Quad Pill)

Reduced Drug Regimens

Management of patients with antiretroviral treatment failure: guidelines comparison

Feedback from 4th IAS Conference July Simon Collins HIV i-base

Clinical support for reduced drug regimens. David A Cooper The University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia

Study No.: Title: Rationale: Phase: Study Period: Study Design: Centres: Indication: Treatment: Objectives: Primary Outcome/Efficacy Variable:

Didactic Series. CROI New Antiretroviral Therapies. Daniel Lee, MD Clinical Professor of Medicine UCSD Medical Center Owen Clinic July 14, 2016

Dr Manisha Yapa. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London. 19 th Annual Conference of the British HIV Association (BHIVA)

Josep Mallolas Hospital Clínic Barcelona

The legally binding text is the original French version TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE OPINION. 9 May 2012

This graph displays the natural history of the HIV disease. During acute infection there is high levels of HIV RNA in plasma, and CD4 s counts

Antiretroviral Treatment Strategies: Clinical Case Presentation

Real Life Experience of Dolutegravir and Lamivudine Dual Therapy As a Switching Regimen in HIVTR Cohort

Professor Jeffery Lennox

Treatment experience in South Africa. Dr Ian Sanne Clinical HIV Research Unit University of the Witwatersrand

HIV Treatment Update. Anton Pozniak Consultant Physician, Director of HIV Services Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London

MDR HIV and Total Therapeutic Failure. Douglas G. Fish, MD Albany Medical College Albany, New York Cali, Colombia March 30, 2007

Study Design. Screening/Enrollment (2:1) Primary endpoint: Determine the proportion of patients with HIV RNA < 50 c/ml at week 24

Sources of slides and information. roi/main.html. CME slide kit : Rush University Medical Center

Professor José Arribas

IAC Analyst Presentation

Treatment strategies for the developing world

BHIVA guidelines on the treatment of HIV-1-positive adults with antiretroviral therapy. START & other changes

HIV Treatment: New and Veteran Drugs Classes

BHIVA Best of CROI Feedback Meetings. London Birmingham North West England Cardiff Gateshead Edinburgh

Switching strategies and ARV treatment costs

Virological suppression and PIs. Diego Ripamonti Malattie Infettive - Bergamo

NUEVOS ENFOQUES TERAPEUTICOS

Dolutegravir Attributes

More Options, Some Opinions Initial Therapies for HIV Judith S. Currier, MD

GSK Medicine: Study Number: Title: Rationale: Phase: Study Period: Study Design: Centers: Indication: Treatment: Objective:

Switching antiretroviral therapy to safer strategies based on integrase inhibitors. Pedro Cahn

Update on HIV Drug Resistance. Daniel R. Kuritzkes, MD Division of Infectious Diseases Brigham and Women s Hospital Harvard Medical School

GS-1489: STUDY DESIGN

Antiretroviral Therapy: New Drugs, New Formulations, New Ideas, New Strategies

Comprehensive Guideline Summary

New Antiretroviral Therapies and Classes. Douglas G. Fish, MD Albany Medical College Albany, NY Cali,, Colombia March 29, 2007

GSK Medicine: Study Number: Title: Rationale: Phase: Study Period: Study Design: Centres: Indication: Treatment: Objectives:

What is the magic number? Clinical perspective

Prima linea: dovremmo evitare i PI nella terapia di prima linea per i loro effetti non desiderati? Giuseppina Liuzzi

Rajesh T. Gandhi, M.D.

Switching antiretroviral therapy to safer strategies based on integrase inhibitors

Introduction. Cahn et al. Andean Pacific HIV Clinical Forum 2017; Santiago, Chile. Abstract 2.

Second and third line paediatric ART strategies

Efficacy and Safety of Doravirine 100mg QD vs Efavirenz 600mg QD with TDF/FTC in ART-Naive HIV-Infected Patients: Week 24 Results

ABC/3TC/ZDV ABC PBO/3TC/ZDV

SA HIV Clinicians Society Adult ART guidelines

Cabotegravir + Rilpivirine as Long-Acting Maintenance Therapy: LATTE-2 Week 32 Results

Study No.: ADF Title: Phase III study of adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) tablets in patients with compensated chronic hepatitis B -comparative study

Cases from the Clinic(ians): Case-Based Panel Discussion

What are the most promising opportunities for dose optimisation?

Didactic Series. CROI 2014 Update. March 27, 2014

HIV Treatment: State of the Art 2013

VIKING STUDIES. Efficacy and safety of dolutegravir. treatment-experienced subjects

The legally binding text is the original French version TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE OPINION. 14 December 2011

David Cluck, PharmD, BCPS, AAHIVP Associate Professor of Pharmacy Practice Office 326 Phone

Statistical issues in HIV trial design. Andrew Hill Senior Visiting Research Fellow Liverpool University

Crafting an ART Regimen for Initiation or Salvage: Are NRTI s Necessary?

GSK Medicine: Study Number: Title: Rationale: Phase: Study Period: Study Design: Centres: Indication: Treatment: Objectives:

Immunologic Failure and Chronic Inflammation. Steven G. Deeks Professor of Medicine University of California, San Francisco

The Integrase Inhibitor Drug Class: A Comparative Clinical Review

DRUGS IN PIPELINE. Pr JC YOMBI UCL-AIDS REFERENCE CENTRE BREACH Sept 27, 2015

1. Africa Centre for Health and Population Studies 2. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine 3. University College London

Cabotegravir Long-Acting (LA) Injectable Nanosuspension Bill Spreen, for ViiV Healthcare & GSK Development Team. 17 th HIV-HEPPK June 2016

Integrase Inhibitors in the Treatment HIV-Infection. Andrew Zolopa, MD Stanford University

The 17th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections* ARV Therapies and Therapeutic Strategies A CME Newsletter

Disclosures. Update on HIV Drug Therapy: A Case based Discussion. Case # 1: Dr. Grant has received grant support from BMS, Gilead, Janssen, and Viiv

European Guidelines. for the Clinical Management and Treatment of HIV Infected Adults

HIV Treatment Update. Awewura Kwara, MD, MPH&TM Associate Professor of Medicine and Infectious Diseases Brown University

Simplified regimens: Pros and Cons

RALTEGRAVIR. October Produced by the London New Drugs Group on behalf of the HIV Drugs and Treatment sub-group of the London HIV Consortium

Management of ART Failure. EACS Advanced HIV Course 2015 Dr Nicky Mackie

Antiretroviral Therapy: Current Recommendations, New Drugs, and Novel Strategies. Joel Gallant, MD, MPH Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

HIGH VIRAL LOAD AND TREATMENT RESPONSE

ACTHIV 2018: A State-of-the-Science Conference for Frontline Health Professionals

Kiat Ruxrungtham. Professor of Medicine Chulalongkorn University, and HIV-NAT, Thai Red Cross AIDS Research Centre

ID Week 2016: HIV Update

First-Line Antiretroviral Therapy for Treatment and Prevention:

WHEN TO START? CROI 2015: Focus on ART

HIV: Approach to the Treatment-Naïve Patient

COMPETING INTEREST OF FINANCIAL VALUE

Scottish Medicines Consortium

Transcription:

Naïve Experienced Strategies ARV in pregnancy ART Treatment Naïve studies: ART Treatment Abstract 37 Atazanavir/r vs Lopinavir/r: Castle study Abstract 774 Kivexa vs Truvada: HEAT study Abstract 775 Lopinavir/r od vs bd : M5-73 study Abstract 4 LB Maraviroc : MERIT study 1

CASTLE: Study Design (Abs 37) International, multicentre, open-label, randomised, 96-week study to determine the comparative clinical efficacy and safety of ATV/r and LPV/r in treatment-naïve HIV-1 infected subjects Screening/Enrollment HIV RNA 5 c/ml, no CD4 cell count restriction Randomisation (n = 883) Stratified: HIV RNA < 1, c/ml vs 1, c/ml; geographic region TDF/FTC 3/2 mg OD (1:1) ATV/r 3/1 mg OD (n = 44) LPV/r 4/1 mg BD (n = 443) TDF/FTC 3/2 mg OD Molina et al., Oral presentation 37 CROI Feb 28, Boston, USA Castle study: Study Objectives Primary end point: Proportion of subjects with HIV RNA < 5 c/ml at week 48 Principal analysis: ITT-Confirmed Virologic Response (CVR) - (NC = F) Supportive analyses: ITT-TLOVR On-treatment-Virologic Response - Observed Cases (OT-VROC) Primary objective: Demonstrate non-inferiority of ATV/r once daily vs LPV/r twice daily based on primary end point -1%, ATV/r LPV/r Secondary end points: Immunologic response Resistance Safety and tolerability Changes in fasting lipids 2

Castle Study: Baseline Characteristics ATV/r n = 44 LPV/r n = 443 Age, median (min-max) 34 (19-72) 36 (19-71) Female, n (%) 138 (31) 139 (31) CDC Class C AIDS, n (%) 19 (4) 24 (5) 5.1 (2.6-4.96 (3.32- HIV RNA log 1 c/ml, median (min-max) 5.88) 5.88) HIV RNA 1, c/ml, n (%) 225 (51) 28 (47) CD4 cells/mm 3, median (min-max) 25 (2-794) 24 (4-81) CD4 < 5 cells/mm 3, n (%) 58 (13) 48 (11) Hepatitis B and/or C co-infection, n (%) 61 (14) 51 (12) Castle study: Patient Disposition ATV/r n = 44 n (%) LPV/r n = 443 n (%) Randomized 44 443 Treated 438 (99) 44 (99) Discontinued before week 48 39 (9) 58 (13) AEs 1 (2) 14 (3) Death 4 (< 1) 4 (< 1) Lack of efficacy 5 (1) 8 (2) Lost to follow-up 6 (1) 6 (1) Poor/noncompliance 6 (1) 9 (2) Withdrew consent 4 (< 1) 13 (3) Other (pregnancy, no longer meets study criteria, other) 4 (< 1) 4 (<1) 3

Castle Study: Primary Efficacy End Point ITT-Confirmed Virologic Response (NC = F) Percent Responders (SE) 1 8 6 4 2 ATV/r n = 44 LPV/r n = 443 HIV RNA < 5 c/ml: 78% ATV/r vs 76% LPV/r Estimated difference: 1.7 (95% CI, -3.8%, 7.1%) BL 4 12 24 36 48 Weeks ATV/r has non-inferior antiviral efficacy compared with LPV/r Supporting Analyses: ITT-TLOVR: HIV RNA < 5 c/ml: ATV/r 78%, LPV/r 76%; 1.9 (-3.6, 7.4) OT-VROC: HIV RNA < 5 c/ml: ATV/r 84%, LPV/r 87%; -3.5 (-8.7, 1.8) Castle Study: Response Rate by Baseline CD4 Cell Count - Post Hoc Analysis Responder (%) < 5 c/ml 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8% P =.51 P =.85 78% 8% 75% 76% 78% 69% 63% ATV/r LPV/r N= 222 16 45 58 228 134 29 48 2 cells/mm 3 1 2 cells/mm 3 5 1 cells/mm 3 < 5 cells/mm 3 P-values are from Cochran-Armitage trend test 4

Castle Study: Adverse Events Summary ATV/r n = 441 n (%) LPV/r n = 437 n (%) Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) 51 (12) 42 (1) All grade 2-4 treatment-related AEs a 115 (26) 129 (3) Grade 2-4 treatment-related AEs 3% a,b Jaundice 16 (4) Nausea 17 (4) 33 (8) Diarrhoea 1 (2) 5 (11) Rash 14 (3) 9 (2) Renal all grade AEs: 2% in both arms a Through 48 weeks. b Excluding laboratory abnormalities reported as AEs. Castle study: Fasting Lipids Mean Percent Changes From Baseline (LOCF) Change From Baseline (%) 6 5 4 3 2 1 T Chol LDL-Chol HDL-Chol Non HDL- Chol * * TG * Difference estimates (%) -9.5-2.9-3.8-11.6-25.2 ATV/r LPV/r * P <.1. 2% of ATV/r vs 7% of LPV/r subjects initiated lipid-lowering therapy during the study 5

Efficacy and Tolerability of LPV/r Tablet vs Soft Gel Capsule, Dosed QD vs BID in Therapy-Naïve Subjects: M5-73 (Abs 775) N = 6 Open-label 1:1:1:1 randomization Screening HIV-1 infection Treatment naïve Any CD4 count HIV-1 RNA >1, c/ml Tablet LPV/r 4/1 mg BID + FTC/TDF SGC LPV/r 4/1 mg BID + FTC/TDF Tablet LPV/r 8/2 mg QD + FTC/TDF SGC LPV/r 8/2 mg QD + FTC/TDF Tablet LPV/r 4/1 mg BID + FTC/TDF Week 8 Week 48/96 Tablet LPV/r 8/2 mg QD + FTC/TDF Primary endpoints Efficacy: Proportion of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA level <5 copies/ml at Week 48 (non inferiority delta:-12%) Safety: Proportion of subjects with adverse events of diarrhoea during the first 8 weeks of study drug treatment Study M5-73 Study M5-73: Disposition through Week 48 Subjects discontinued Adverse event Death Virologic Failure Lost to follow-up Withdrew consent Nonadherence Other LPV/r 8/2 mg QD (n=333) 49 (14.7%) 16 (4.8%) 2 (.6%) 2 (.6%) 1 (3%) 16 (4.8%) 5 (1.5%) 9 (2.7%) LPV/r 4/1 mg BID (n=331) 55 (16.6%) 1 (3%) 1 (.3%) 5 (1.5%) 17 (5.1%) 13 (3.9%) 9 (2.7%) 8 (2.4%) Investigators may have provided more than one reason for a subject s discontinuation 6

M5-73:Primary efficacy endpoint: Proportion <5 copies/ml Week 48 analysis ITT (NC=F) 1 QD 77.2%; BID 75.8% Difference: 1.3% [-5.1%, 7.8%] 8 6 p=.715 4 2 QD BID Sample Size QD BID 8 16 24 32 4 48 333 331 Week M5-73: Proportion of Subjects with HIV-1 RNA <5 copies/ml at Week 48 by BL HIV-1 RNA and CD4: M5-73 QD vs. BID (ITT, NC=F Analysis) 1 QD BID 1 9 8 7 N=173 N=138 N=16 N=193 9 8 7 N=34 N=53 N=116 N=1 N=182 N=178 Percent 6 5 4 Percent 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 <1, >=1, <5 5- <2 >=2 (p=.782) (p>.999) (p=.66) (p=.879) (p=.439) Baseline HIV-1 RNA (copies/ml) Baseline CD4 (cells/mm 3 ) 7

M5-73:Table 4: Most Common Moderate/Severe Related Adverse Events and Grade 3/4 Laboratory Abnormalities Moderate or severe LPV/r-related adverse events or Grade 3/4 lab abnormality* QD (N=333) BID (N=331) p-value @ Diarrhea Nausea Vomiting Hypertriglyceridemia 17% 7% 3% 2% 15% 5% 4% 2%.671.426.684.81 SGOT/AST (>5 x ULN) Cholesterol (>3 mg/dl) Triglycerides (>75 mg/dl) CrCL (<5 ml/min) 1% 4% 3% 2% 2% 3% 6% 2%.38.672.63.8 * Includes all events occurring in at least 2% of subjects in either group @ P=value based on Fisher s exact test HEAT Study Design (Abs 774) Randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study conducted at 78 sites in the US over 96 weeks ART-naïve subjects N=688 N=343 N=345 + ABC/3TC placebo QD Entry criteria: HIV-1 RNA 1 c/ml No CD4 cell count restrictions Stratified by entry HIV-1 RNA <1, or 1, c/ml Primary endpoint: VL <5 at 48 weeks, Non inferiority delta:-12% (ITT-E, M=F, switch included) ABC/3TC (6mg/3mg) QD + LPV/r (8mg/2mg) SGC * QD + TDF/FTC placebo QD TDF/FTC (3mg/2mg) QD + LPV/r (8mg/2mg) SGC * QD *All subjects switched to LPV/r tablets at Week 48 Smith K 15 th CROI Abs 774 8

Heat Study:Virologic Non-Response Virologic failure was any one of the following: By Week 24: No confirmed HIV-1 RNA < 2 c/ml Confirmed reduction of HIV-1 RNA to <5 c/ml with confirmed rebound in HIV-1 RNA to 2 c/ml After Week 24: Protocol-Defined Virologic Failure Confirmed HIV-1 RNA 2 c/ml Heat Study: Subject Disposition by Week 48 Kivexa Truvada Total 343 345 688 Completed 48 weeks 275 (8%) 262 (76%) 537 (78%) Prematurely withdrawn 68 (2%) 83 (24%) 151 (22%) Primary Reason for withdrawal 68 83 151 Adverse event 13 (4%) 2 (6%) 33 (5%) Protocol violation 2 (1%) (%) 2 (%) Protocol-defined virologic failure 4 (1%) 4 (1%) 8 (1%) Lost to follow-up 27 (8%) 3 (9%) 57 (8%) Subject decision 9 (3%) 14 (4%) 23 (3%) Noncompliance 7 (2%) 9 (3%) 16 (2%) Other 6 (2%) 6 (2%) 12 (2%) * 7 deaths occurred in the study: 1 (<1%) KVXA and 6 (2%) TVDA 9

HEAT Study: HIV-1 RNA <5 c/ml (ITT-E) Proportion of Subjects 1 n (obs) 8 6 4 2 8 16 24 32 4 48 Study Week Kivexa, M=F Truvada, M=F Kivexa, TLOVR Truvada, TLOVR Kivexa, Obs Truvada, Obs Kivexa =343 325 312 3 295 29 282 275 Truvada = 345 321 38 296 286 28 272 267 Heat study:hiv-1 RNA <5 c/ml at Week 48 (ITT-E) Proportion of Subjects 12 1 8 6 4 2 68 67 63 61 M=F TLOVR Obs MD=F Kivexa Point difference 84 87 64 62 Truvada 95% confidence interval 12-12 -16-32 -48-64 -8-96 -112 % Point difference Results are stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA 1

Heat study: Protocol-allowable Toxicity Switches Kivexa Truvada (n=343) (n=345) Suspected HSR 14 (4%) 3 (1%) Proximal renal tubule dysfunction* 3 (1%) Total 14 (4%) 6 (2%) *PRTD was defined as confirmed rise in Scr of.5 mg/dl from BL AND serum phosphate < 2 mg/dl or either of the former accompanied by any two of the following (proteinuria, glycosuria, low serum potassium or low serum bicarbonate) Heat Study: Virologic Failures by Week 48 (ITT-E) Kivexa (N=343) Truvada (N=345) Total (N=688) Virologic failures (protocol-defined) 41 (12%) 44 (13%) 85 (12%) Confirmed rebound to 2 c/ml 19 (6%) 15 (4%) 34 (5%) Failure to achieve confirmed <2 c/ml by Week 24 21 (6%) 24 (7%) 45 (7%) Unconfirmed rebound at last visit (Suspected virologic failures) 1 (<1%) 5 (2%) 6 (1%) 11

Heat Study: Resistance Through 48 Weeks Kivexa Truvada Protocol Defined virologic failures 41 44 With GART data at both BL and VF 35 32 No treatment-emergent mutations 23 (66%) 15 (47%) Treatment-emergent mutations 12 (34%) 17 (53%) Heat Study: Summary of Treatment- Related Adverse Events (AEs) Kivexa Truvada (N=343) (N=345) Grade 2-4 AEs 154 (45%) 152 (44%) Severe or Grade 3-4 AEs 43 (13%) 46 (13%) Serious AEs 17 (5%) 9 (3%) Suspected HSR 14 (4%) 3 (1%) Proximal renal tubule dysfunction* 3 (1%) *PRTD was defined as confirmed rise in Scr of.5 mg/dl from BL AND serum phosphate < 2 mg/dl or either of the former accompanied by any two of the following (proteinuria, glycosuria, low serum potassium or low serum bicarbonate) 12

Patients (%) 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 N= Merit study: Maraviroc in ART naïve HIV RNA <5 copies/ml (ITT) 4.2* ( 1.9 ) 69.3 361 36 Week 48 Efficacy Results 65.3 EFV + CBV MVC + CBV Mean change in from baaseline in CD4+ count (cells/mm 3 ) *Difference (adjusted for randomization strata) Lower bound of 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval; non-inferiority margin = 1% 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 Change in CD4+ cell count (LOCF) EFV + CBV MVC + CBV 169 cells/mm 3 142 cells/mm 3 8 16 24 32 4 48 Time (weeks) MERIT Study 48 weeks Saag M, et al. 4th IAS 27. Abstract WESS14 Merit study: Maraviroc v EFV in ART naïve Analysis of possible reasons for inferior outcome (Abs 4LB) 13 patients (3.8%) receiving MVC had a change in tropism result from R5 to D/M between screening and baseline The response to MVC was significantly reduced in this subgroup Tropism changes were 5% less frequent in patients with Clade C HIV-1 than in patients with Clade B or other Clades For subjects with R5 virus at baseline, no appreciable difference in treatment response was seen between the MVC and EFV treatment groups CXCR4-using virus was detected at failure in 1/32 (31.3%) MVC-treated (3mg BID) subjects with R5 virus at baseline Resistance to MVC in patients failing with R5 virus was uncommon 2/12 patients studied Viral load rebound in patients failing the MVC arm was more commonly associated with BLQ plasma levels at the time of failure Heera J 15 th CROI Abs 4 LB 13

Experienced: Raltegravir: Etravirine: Maraviroc: ART Treatment Treatment Experienced:48 Week Data VL<5 24 Weeks(%) VL<5 48 Weeks(%) VL<5 PSS: 2or> Discont from AEs (%) Benchmark (1) Ralt +OBT OBT 62 33 65 31 7 43 1.7 4.3 DUET (2) Etrav+OBT OBT 61 41 61 4 78 67 7 7 Motivate (3) MVC bd + OBT OBT 42.2 24.6 43.2 16.7 - - 5.8 5.3 1. Benchmark 1+ 2 studies Abs 788,789 (24,48 week VL data from Benchmark1) 2. DUET 1+2 studies Abs 79,791 3. Motivate 1+2 studies Abs 792 14

Treatment experienced Benchmark studies 67% of 49 patients experiencing VL failure developed raltegravir associated resistance mutations No difference in risk of malignancy: Ralt + OBT v OBT: OR 1.5 (95%CI.5-6.3) Motivate Studies No difference in incidence of malignancy (HIV and non HIV cancers): MVC +OBT: 5.4% v OBT: 7.3% No difference in grade 3 or 4 increase in ALT: MVC bd +OBT: 2.7% v OBT: 3.4% Vicriviroc: Victor-EI study phase IIb Primary Study Endpoint Overall Population Triple class experienced Primary end point: mean VL decrease at 48 weeks (ITT) Higher doses of Vicriviroc evaluated than in previous trials 3mg dose chosen for phase III trials No grade 3 or 4 ALT increase with Vicriviroc Abs 39Lb,795 Mean Change in HIV-1 RNA from baseline (log 1 copies/ml) -.2 -.4 -.6 -.8-1 -1.2-1.4-1.6-1.8-2 VCV 3 mg + OBT n = 39 VCV 2 mg + OBT n = 4-1.77-1.75 Difference: -.98 Difference: -.98 P=.17* P=.26* Placebo + OBT n = 35 -.79 Zingman 15 th CROI Abs 39LB 15

ART treatment Strategies: PI dual therapy: ANRS 127 pilot study in ART naïve: Abs 779 - Atv/Saq/r v Fosamp/Atv/r - suboptimal response at week 24 - no difference between arms - VL <5: 42%; VL 51-4: 33% Treatment interruption: Final SMART analysis Abs 36 ART post OI: ACTG 5164, Abs 142 - Immediate v Deferred initiation of ART during an acute OI or serious bacterial infection - Excluded: Tb Unable to take oral medications Prior ART ACTG 5164: Study outcomes Outcome Time to start (median IQR) Total Immediate: 12 days (9-13) Deferred: 45 days (41-55) No endpoint 36 (12.8%) 18 (12.8%) 18 (12.8%) - Primary P value R (99%CI) Death or AIDS VL >5,no progression VL<5,no progression Secondary 54 (19.1%) 2 (14.2%) 34 (24.1%) - 98 (34.8%) 54 (38.3%) 44 (31.25) - 13 (46.1%) 67 (47.5%) 63 (44.7%) P=.215 Death/AIDS 54 (19.1%) 2 (14.2%) 34 (24.1%) P=.35 OR=.51(.23-1.15) 16

Time to: (Weeks) ACTG 5164: secondary outcomes Immediate Deferred HR (995CI) P value AIDS/ Death.53 (.25-1.9) P=.23 CD4 >1 (median,iqr) Outcomes 4.3 (4.-23.6) 12.1 (8.6-28.1) P=<.1 VL<5 at Wk 48 (ITT) ART adherent at wk 48 71 (5%) 72 (51%) ns 95% 93% ns ART Changes 42% 35%.19 IRIS confirmed 8 (5.7%) 12 (8.5%) ns Summary Atazanavir/r non inferior to Lopinavir/r in ART naïve patients, with less diarhoea and better lipid profile Lopinavir/r tablets od non inferior to Lopinavir/r tablets bd with similar tolerability profile. Kivexa non inferior to Truvada in ART naïve patients in combination with Lopinavir/r allowing for toxicity switches Non inferiority of Maraviroc v Efavirenz in ART naïve partially explained by switch in tropism at baseline and at failure. Resistance to Maraviroc in failures uncommon Raltegravir, Maraviroc and Etravirine maintain similar efficacy at 48 weeks compared to 24 weeks in triple class experienced patients Early initiation of ART in patients with Acute OI or severe Bacterial sepsis results in lower clinical progression by 48 weeks and earlier increase in CD4 count 17