LOGIN

International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS

Home >> Publications >> Moving away from Ritonavir, Abacavir, Tenofovir, and Efavirenz (RATE)--agents that concern prescribers and patients: a feasibility study and call for a trial.

Publication

Author(s):

Achhra AC, Boyd MA, Law MG, Matthews GV, Kelleher AD, Cooper DA.

Pub Title:

Moving away from Ritonavir, Abacavir, Tenofovir, and Efavirenz (RATE)--agents that concern prescribers and patients: a feasibility study and call for a trial.

Pub Date:

Jun 26 2014

Pub Region(s):

Asia-Pacific

Journal:

Title: 
PLoS One
Link: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4072535/

PubMed: 24968324
Pub PDF: PDF icon 24968324.pdf

Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
Regimens sparing RATE (ritonavir, abacavir, tenofovir, efavirienz) agents might have better long-term safety. We conducted a feasibility exercise to assess the potential for a randomised trial evaluating RATE-sparing regimens.

DESIGN: Observational.

METHODS: We first calculated RATE-sparing options available to an average patient receiving RATE agents. We reviewed treatment history and all resistance assays from patients attending the St. Vincent's Hospital (Sydney) clinic and receiving ≥2 RATE agents (n = 120). A viable RATE-sparing regimen with 2 or 3 fully-active agents was constructed from the following six 'safer' agents: rilpivirine or etravirine; atazanavir; raltegravir; maraviroc; and lamivudine. Activity for each drug was predicted as 1 (full-activity), 0.5 or 0 (no activity) using the Stanford mutation database. The utility of maraviroc was calculated assuming both maraviroc activity and inactivity where unknown. The analysis was restricted to regimens for which supporting evidence was identified in the literature or conference proceedings. Finally, we calculated the proportion of patients in the nationally representative Australian HIV Observational Database (AHOD) cohort receiving ≥2 RATE agents (n = 1473) to measure the potential population-level uptake of RATE-sparing agents.

RESULTS: Assuming full maraviroc activity, 117(97.5%) and 107(89.2%) individuals had at least one option with 2 or 3 active RATE-sparing agents, respectively. Assuming no maraviroc activity this decreased to 113(94.2%) and 104(86.7%), respectively. In AHOD, 837(56.8%) patients were receiving ≥2 RATE agents.

CONCLUSION: Feasible treatment switch options sparing RATE agents exist for the majority of patients. Understanding the pros and cons of switching stable patients onto new RATE-sparing regimens requires evidence derived from randomised controlled trials.

The following websites provide guidelines and policies when citing from PubMed®: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7243/
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/policy/cit_format.html

Citation:

Achhra AC, Boyd MA, Law MG, Matthews GV, Kelleher AD, Cooper DA. Moving away from Ritonavir, Abacavir, Tenofovir, and Efavirenz (RATE)--agents that concern prescribers and patients: a feasibility study and call for a trial. PLoS One. 2014 Jun 26;9(6):e99530. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099530. eCollection 2014. PubMed PMID: 24968324; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4072535.