These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A randomized trial to evaluate lopinavir/ritonavir versus saquinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients: the MaxCmin2 trial.
    Author: Dragsted UB, Gerstoft J, Youle M, Fox Z, Losso M, Benetucci J, Jayaweera DT, Rieger A, Bruun JN, Castagna A, Gazzard B, Walmsley S, Hill A, Lundgren JD, MaxCmin2 Trial Group.
    Journal: Antivir Ther; 2005; 10(6):735-43. PubMed ID: 16218173.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate of protocol-defined treatment failure and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and saquinavir/ritonavir (SAQ/r). DESIGN: Open-label, prospective, randomized (1:1), international multi-centre trial. METHODS: Adult HIV-1-infected patients were assigned LPV/r 400/100 mg twice daily or SAQ/r 1000/100 mg twice daily with two or more nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)/non-NRTIs. All patients, whether on or off the assigned treatment, were followed for 48 weeks. RESULTS: Of 339 randomized patients, 324 initiated assigned treatment (intention-to-treat/exposed [ITT/e] population). At 48 weeks, treatment failure occurred in 29/163 (18%) and 53/161 (33%) of patients in the LPV/r and SAQ/r arms, respectively (ITT/e, P = 0.002, log rank test). In an analysis that also considered those patients who discontinued treatment as having failed treatment (ITT/e/discontinuation = failure), 40/161 (25%) LPV/r-treated individuals versus 63/161 (39%) SAQ/R-treated individuals failed treatment (P = 0.005, log rank test). Discontinuation of the assigned treatment occurred in 23/163 (14%) patients in the LPV/r-treated group, compared with 48/161 (300%) in the SAQ/r-treated group (ITT/e; P = 0.001). The primary reasons for premature discontinuation were non-fatal adverse events (LPV/r: 12/163; SAQ/r: 21/161) and patients' choice (LPV/r: 7/163; SAQ/r: 8/161). In the on-treatment analysis of time to treatment failure, no difference was observed between the two arms (P = 0.27, log rank test). CONCLUSION: LPV/r had better antiretroviral effects compared with SAQ/r at the doses and in the formulations studied. This may have been a result of patients' preferences and ability to adhere to assigned therapy, rather than a result of differences in the intrinsic potency of the study protease inhibitors.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]