| 4.2 Posology and method of administration
Patients with renal impairment: no dosage adjustment is needed. REYATAZ with ritonavir is not recommended in patients undergoing haemodialysis (see sectionsections 4.4 and 5.2).
4.4 Special warnings and precautions for use
Addition of:
No dosage adjustment is needed in patients with renal impairment. However, REYATAZ with ritonavir is not recommended in patients undergoing haemodialysis (see sections 4.2 and 5.2).
(.......)
Co‑administration of REYATAZ/ritonavir in combination with tenofovir and an H2‑receptor antagonist should be avoided (see section 4.5).
4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
(....)
Table 1: Interactions between REYATAZ and other medicinal products
|
ACID REDUCING AGENTS
|
|
H2‑Receptor antagonists
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Famotidine 40 mg BID (atazanavir 300 mg QD with ritonavir 100 mg QD)
|
atazanavir
|
↓ 0.82
(0.75, 0.89)
|
↓0.86
(0.79, 0.94)
|
↓0.72
(0.64, 0.81)
|
No dosage adjustment of REYATAZ/ ritonavir is required when co‑administered with an H2‑receptor antagonist, all as a single daily dose with food. Reductions in atazanavir concentrations may be avoided by temporal separation of REYATAZ and an H2‑receptor antagonist as follows: REYATAZ 300 mg with ritonavir 100 mg once daily with food, 2 hours before and at least 10 hours following the administration of an H2‑receptor antagonist.
|
|
Although not studied, similar results are expected with other H2‑receptor antagonists. The relevance of these data for HIV infected patients is unknown since the intragastric pH may be higher in this population. Therefore, the magnitude of this effect may be more pronounced. The mechanism of interaction is decreased solubility of atazanavir as intra-gastric pH increases with H2 blockers.
|
|
Without Tenofovir
|
|
|
|
|
For patients not taking tenofovir, if REYATAZ 300 mg/ritonavir 100 mg and H2‑receptor antagonists are co‑administered, a dose equivalent to famotidine 20 mg BID should not be exceeded. If a higher dose of an H2‑receptor antagonist is required (eg, famotidine 40 mg BID or equivalent) an increase of the REYATAZ/ritonavir dose from 300/100 mg to 400/100 mg can be considered.
|
|
In HIV‑infected patients with atazanavir/ritonavir at the recommended dose 300/100 mg QD
|
|
|
|
|
‑ famotidine 20 mg BID
|
atazanavir
|
↓0.82
(0.75, 1.01)
|
↓0.80
(0.68, 0.93)
|
↔0.99
(0.84, 1.18)
|
|
‑ famotidine 40 mg BID
|
atazanavir
|
↓0.77
(0.68, 0.86)
|
↓0.77
(0.67, 0.88)
|
↓0.80
(0.69, 0.92)
|
|
In Healthy volunteers with atazanavir/ritonavir at an increased dose of 400/100 mg QD
|
|
|
|
|
‑ famotidine 40 mg BID
|
atazanavir
|
↔1.03
(0.86, 1.22)
|
↔1.02
(0.87, 1.18)
|
↓0.86
(0.68, 1.08)
|
|
With Tenofovir 300 mg QD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In HIV‑infected patients with atazanavir/ritonavir at the recommended dose of 300/100 mg QD
|
|
|
|
For patients who are taking tenofovir,
Co‑administration of REYATAZ/ritonavir in combination with tenofovir and an H2‑receptor antagonist should be avoided (see section 4.4). If the combination of REYATAZ/ritonavir with both tenofovir and an H2‑receptor antagonist is judged unavoidable, close clinical monitoring is recommended. A dose increase of REYATAZ to 400 mg with 100 mg of ritonavir may be considered but is still under evaluation.
|
|
‑ famotidine 20 mg BID
|
atazanavir
|
↓0.79*
(0.66, 0.96)
|
↓0.79*
(0.64, 0.96)
|
↓0.81*
(0.63, 1.05)
|
|
‑ famotidine 40 mg BID
|
atazanavir
|
↓0.76*
(0.64, 0.89)
|
↓0.77*
(0.64, 0.92)
|
↓0.75*
(0.53, 1.07)
|
|
|
* When compared to atazanavir 300 mg QD with ritonavir 100 mg QD and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg all as a single dose with food. When compared to atazanavir 300 mg with ritonavir 100 mg without tenofovir, atazanavir concentrations are expected to be additionally decreased by about 20%.
The mechanism of interaction is decreased solubility of atazanavir as intra‑gastric pH increases with H2 blockers.
|
|
Proton pump inhibitors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Omeprazole 40 mg QD (atazanavir 400 mg QD with ritonavir 100 mg QD)
|
atazanavir (am): 2 hr after omeprazole
|
↓0.39
(0.35, 0.45)
|
↓0.44
(0.38, 0.51)
|
↓0.35
(0.29, 0.41)
|
Co-administration of REYATAZ/ritonavir with proton pump inhibitors is not recommended. If the combination of REYATAZ/ritonavir with a proton pump inhibitor is judged unavoidable, close clinical monitoring is recommended in combination with an increase in the dose of REYATAZ to 400 mg with 100 mg of ritonavir; doses of proton pump inhibitors comparable to omeprazole 20 mg should not be exceeded (see section 4.4).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Omeprazole 20 mg QD (atazanavir 400 mg QD with ritonavir 100 mg QD)
Omeprazole 20 mg QD (atazanavir 400 mg QD with ritonavir 100 mg QD)
|
atazanavir (am): 1 hr after omeprazaoleomeprazole
|
↓0.70*
(0.57, 0.86)
|
↓0.69*
(0.58, 0.83)
|
↓0.69*
(0.54, 0.88)
|
|
|
* When compared to atazanavir 300 mg QD with ritonavir 100 mg QD
|
|
|
The decrease in AUC, Cmax, and Cmin was not mitigated when an increased dose of REYATAZ/ritonavir (400/100 mg once daily) was temporally separated from omeprazole by 12 hours. Although not studied, similar results are expected with other proton pump inhibitors. This decrease in atazanavir exposure might negatively impact the efficacy of atazanavir. The mechanism of interaction is decreased solubility of atazanavir as intra‑gastric pH increases with proton pump inhibitors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.8 Undesirable effects
REYATAZ has been evaluated for safety in combination therapy with other antiretroviral medicinal products in controlled clinical trials in 1,806 adult patients receiving REYATAZ 400 mg once daily (1,151 patients, 52 weeks median duration and 152 weeks maximum duration) or REYATAZ 300 mg with ritonavir 100 mg once daily (655 patients, 48 96°weeks median duration and 101108 weeks maximum duration).
(.....)
Laboratory abnormalities
The most frequently reported laboratory abnormality in patients receiving regimens containing REYATAZ and one or more NRTIs was elevated total bilirubin reported predominantly as elevated indirect [unconjugated] bilirubin (8487% Grade 1, 2, 3, or 4). Grade 3 or 4 elevation of total bilirubin was noted in 35% (537% (6% Grade 4). Among experienced patients treated with REYATAZ 300 mg once daily with 100 mg ritonavir once daily for a median duration of 95 weeks, 53% had Grade 3‑4 total bilirubin elevations. Among naive patients treated with REYATAZ 300 mg once daily with 100 mg ritonavir once daily for a median duration of 4896 weeks, 3948% had Grade 3‑4 total bilirubin elevations (see section 4.4).
Other marked clinical laboratory abnormalities (Grade 3 or 4) reported in ≥ 2% of patients receiving regimens containing REYATAZ and one or more NRTIs included: elevated creatine kinase (7%), elevated alanine aminotransferase/serum glutamic‑pyruvic transaminase (ALT/SGPT) (45%), low neutrophils (45%), elevated aspartate aminotransferase/serum glutamic‑oxaloacetic transaminase (AST/SGOT) (3%), and elevated lipase (23%).
OneTwo percent of patients treated with REYATAZ experienced concurrent Grade 3‑4 ALT/AST and Grade 3‑4 total bilirubin elevations.
5.1 Pharmacodynamic properties
Antiviral activity in vitro: atazanavir exhibits anti‑HIV‑1 activity (EC50 of 2 to 5 nM) in the absence of human serum against a variety of laboratory(including all clades tested) and clinical anti‑HIV isolates. Atazanavir has‑2 activity against HIV‑1 Group M subtype viruses A, B, C, D, AE, AG, F, G, and J isolates in cell culture. Atazanavir has activity against HIV‑2 isolates (EC50 of 1.9 to 32 nM). Combinations of atazanavir with stavudine, didanosine, lamivudine, zidovudine, nelfinavir, indinavir, ritonavir, saquinavir, amprenavir, did not result in antagonistic anti‑HIV activity or enhanced cytotoxic effects at the highest concentrations used for antiviral evaluation.
Resistance
Antiretroviral treatment naive patients
In clinical trials of antiretroviral treatment naive patients treated with unboosted atazanavir, the I50L substitution, sometimes in combination with an A71V change, is the signature resistance substitution for atazanavir. An atazanavir resistance phenotype is expressed in all recombinant viral clones containing the I50L substitution in a variety of genetic backgrounds. Resistance levels to atazanavir ranged from 3.5‑ to 29‑fold. There was no without evidence of phenotypic cross‑resistance between atazanavir and amprenavir, with the presence resistance to other PIs. In clinical trials of antiretroviral treatment naive patients treated with boosted atazanavir, the I50L and I50Vsubstitution did not emerge in any patient without baseline PI substitutions yielding selective resistance to atazanavir and amprenavir, respectively. The N88S substitution has been rarely observed in patients with virologic failure on atazanavir treatment(with or without ritonavir). While it may contribute to decreased susceptibility to atazanavir when it occurs with other protease substitutions, in clinical studies N88S by itself does not always lead to phenotypic resistance to atazanavir or have a consistent impact on clinical efficacy.
|
Table 2. De novo substitutions in treatment naive patients failing therapy with atazanavir + ritonavir (Study 138, 96 weeks)
|
|
Frequency
|
de novo PI substitution (n=26)a
|
|
>20%
|
none
|
|
10-20%
|
none
|
|
a Number of patients with paired genotypes classified as virological failures (HIV RNA ≥ 400 copies/ml).
|
The M184I/V substitution emerged in 5/26 REYATAZ/ritonavir and 7/26 lopinavir/ritonavir virologic failure patients, respectively.
Antiretroviral treatment experienced patients
In antiretroviral treatment experienced patients from Studies 009, 043, and 045, 100 isolates from patients designated as virological failures on therapy that included either atazanavir, atazanavir + ritonavir, or atazanavir + saquinavir were determined to have developed resistance to atazanavir. Of the 60 isolates from patients treated with either atazanavir or atazanavir + ritonavir, 18 (30%) displayed the I50L phenotype previously described in naive patients.
|
Table 3. De novo substitutions in treatment experienced patients failing therapy with atazanavir + ritonavir (Study 045, 48 weeks)
|
|
Frequency
|
de novo PI substitution (n=35)a,b
|
|
>20%
|
M36, M46, I54, A71, V82
|
|
10-20%
|
L10, I15, K20, V32, E35, S37, F53, I62, G73, I84, L90
|
|
a Number of patients with paired genotypes classified as virological failures (HIV RNA ≥ 400 copies/ml).
b Ten patients had baseline phenotypic resistance to atazanavir + ritonavir (fold change [FC]>5.2). FC susceptibility in cell culture relative to the wild-type reference was assayed using PhenoSenseTM (Monogram Biosciences, South San Francisco, California, USA)
|
None of the de novo substitutions (see Table 3) are specific to atazanavir and may reflect re-emergence of archived resistance on atazanavir + ritonavir in Study 045 treatment-experienced population.
The resistance in antiretroviral treatment experienced patients mainly occurs by accumulation of the primary and secondarymajor and minor resistance substitutions described previously to be involved in protease inhibitor resistance. These isolates developed higher levels of resistance to the other protease inhibitors.
Cross‑resistance in vitro in viruses resistant to other protease inhibitors
Atazanavir susceptibility was evaluated in 943 clinical isolates from patients without prior atazanavir exposure and exhibited a wide array of genotypic and phenotypic patterns. In vitro, there was a clear trend toward decreased susceptibility to atazanavir as isolates exhibited high resistance levels to multiple protease inhibitors. In general, susceptibility to atazanavir was retained (83% of isolates displayed < 2.5 fold change in EC50) among isolates resistant to no more than 2 protease inhibitors.
Eighteen percent of isolates had 4 or more of the following 6 substitutions considered critical substitutions for protease inhibitors: positions L10, M46, I54, V82, I84, and L90. These isolates expressed a median fold change in EC50 relative to wildtype of 12.0 for atazanavir. Therefore, viral isolates having at least 4 of these specific mutations would be considered resistant for atazanavir.
Clinical results
In antiretroviral naive patients
Study 138 is an international randomised, open‑label, multicenter, prospective trial of 883 antiretroviral treatment naïve patients comparing REYATAZ/ritonavir (300 mg/100 mg once daily) to lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice daily), each in combination with fixed dose tenofovir/emtricitabine (300 mg/200 mg tablets once daily). The mean baseline CD4 cell count was 214 cells/mm3 (range: 2 to 810 cells/ mm3) and mean baseline plasma HIV‑1 RNA was 4.94 log10 copies/ml (range: 2.6 to 5.88 log10 copies/ml). The REYATAZ/ritonavir arm hasshowed similar (non-inferior) antiviral efficacy compared to the lopinavir/ritonavir arm, as assessed by the proportion of patients with HIV RNA < 50 copies/ml at week 48: 78% of patients on REYATAZ/ritonavir compared to 76% on lopinavir/ritonavir (difference estimate of ATV/RTV-LPV/RTV: 1.7% [95% CI, -3.8%, 7.1%] according to the Confirmed Virologic Response (CVR) Non-Completer = Failure (NC = F) definition of response.
In a per protocol analysis which excluded non-completers (i.e. patients who discontinued before the week 48 HIV RNA assessment) and patients with major protocol deviations, the proportion of patients with HIV RNA < 50 copies/ml at week 48 was 86% (338/392) for REYATAZ/ritonavir and 89% (332/372) for lopinavir/ritonavir (difference estimate of ATV/RTV-LPV/RTV: -3% [95% CI, -7.6%, 1.5%].
(Table 2: 4).
Analyses of data through 96 weeks of treatment demonstrated durability of antiviral activity (Table 4).
Table 4: Efficacy Outcomes at Week 48 (in Study 138) for the CVR (NC=F) analysis a
|
Parameter
|
REYATAZ/ritonaviraritonavirb (300 mg/100 mg
once daily)
n=440
|
lopinavir/ritonavirbLopinavir/ritonavirc (400 mg/100 mg
twice daily)
n=443
|
|
HIV RNA <50 copies/ml, % c
|
|
All patients
|
78
|
76
|
|
Baseline Characteristics
|
|
|
HIV RNA
<100,000 copies/ml
|
82 (n=217d)
|
81 (n=218)
|
|
|
≥100,000 copies/ml
|
74 (n=223)
|
72 (n=225)
|
|
|
CD4 count
<50 cells/mm3
|
78 (n=58)
|
63 (n=48)
|
|
|
50 to <100 cells/mm3
|
76 (n=45)
|
69 (n=29)
|
|
|
100 to <200 cells/mm3
|
75 (n=106)
|
78 (n=134)
|
|
|
≥200 cells/mm3
|
80 (n=222)
|
80 (n=228)
|
|
|
Week 48
|
Week 96
|
Week 48
|
Week 96
|
|
HIV RNA <50 copies/ml, %
|
|
All patientsd
|
78
|
74
|
76
|
68
|
|
Difference estimate
[95% CI]d
|
Week 48: 1.7% [-3.8%, 7.1%]
Week 96: 6.1% [0.3%, 12.0%]
|
|
Per protocol analysise
|
86
(n=392f)
|
91
(n=352)
|
89
(n=372)
|
89
(n=331)
|
|
Difference estimatee
[95% CI]
|
Week 48: -3% [-7.6%, 1.5%]
Week 96: 2.2% [-2.3%, 6.7%]
|
|
HIV RNA <50 copies/ml, % by Baseline Characteristicd
|
|
HIV RNA
<100,000 copies/ml
|
82 (n=217)
|
75 (n=217)
|
81 (n=218)
|
70 (n=218)
|
|
≥100,000 copies/ml
|
74 (n=223)
|
74 (n=223)
|
72 (n=225)
|
66 (n=225)
|
|
CD4 count
<50 cells/mm3
|
78 (n=58)
|
78 (n=58)
|
63 (n=48)
|
58 (n=48)
|
|
50 to <100 cells/mm3
|
76 (n=45)
|
71 (n=45)
|
69 (n=29)
|
69 (n=29)
|
|
100 to <200 cells/mm3
|
75 (n=106)
|
71 (n=106)
|
78 (n=134)
|
70 (n=134)
|
|
≥ 200 cells/mm3
|
80 (n=222)
|
76 (n=222)
|
80 (n=228)
|
69 (n=228)
|
|
HIV RNA Mean Change from Baseline, log10 copies/ml
|
|
|
All patients
|
-3.09 (n=397)
|
-3.13 (n=379)
|
|
All patients
|
-3.09 (n=397)
|
-3.21 (n=360)
|
-3.13 (n=379)
|
-3.19 (n=340)
|
|
CD4 Mean Change from Baseline, cells/mm3
|
|
All patients
|
203 (n=370)
|
268 (n=336)
|
219 (n=363)
|
290 (n=317)
|
|
CD4 Mean Change from Baseline, cells/mm3 by Baseline Characteristic
|
|
HIV RNA
<100,000 copies/ml
|
179 (n=183)
|
243 (n=163)
|
194 (n=183)
|
267 (n=152)
|
|
≥100,000 copies/ml
|
227 (n=187)
|
291 (n=173)
|
245 (n=180)
|
310 (n=165)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a Mean baseline CD4 cell count was 214 cells/mm3 (range 2 to 810 cells/mm3) and mean baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA was 4.94 log10 copies/ml (range 2.6 to 5.88 log10 copies/ml)
b REYATAZ/RTV with tenofovir/emtricitabine (fixed dose 300 mg/200 mg tablets once daily).
c Lopinavir/RTV with tenofovir/emtricitabine (fixed dose 300 mg/200 mg tablets once daily).
d Intent-to-treat analysis, with missing values considered as failures.
e Per protocol analysis: Excluding non-completers and patients with major protocol deviations.
f Number of patients evaluable.
In antiretroviral experienced patients
Study 045 is a randomised, multicenter trial comparing REYATAZ/ritonavir (300/100 mg once daily) and REYATAZ/saquinavir (400/1,200 mg once daily), to lopinavir + ritonavir (400/100 mg fixed dose combination twice daily), each in combination with tenofovir (see sections 4.5 and 4.8) and one NRTI, in patients with virologic failure on two or more prior regimens containing at least one PI, NRTI, and NNRTI. For randomised patients, the mean time of prior antiretroviral exposure was 138 weeks for PIs, 281 weeks for NRTIs, and 85 weeks for NNRTIs. At baseline, 34% of patients were receiving a PI and 60% were receiving an NNRTI. Fifteen of 120 (13%) patients in the REYATAZ + ritonavir treatment arm and 17 of 123 (14%) patients in the lopinavir + ritonavir arm had four or more of the PI substitutions L10, M46, I54, V82, I84, and L90. Thirty‑two percent of patients in the study had a viral strain with fewer than two NRTI substitutions.
The primary endpoint was the time‑averaged difference in change from baseline in HIV RNA through 48 weeks (Table 5).
Table 5: Efficacy Outcomes at Week 48a and at Week 96 (Study 045)
|
Parameter
|
ATV/RTVb (300 mg/ 100 mg once daily)
n=120
|
LPV/RTVc (400 mg/ 100 mg twice daily)
n=123
|
Time-averaged difference ATV/RTV-LPV/RTV
[97.5% CId]
|
|
|
Week 48
|
Week 96
|
Week 48
|
Week 96
|
Week 48
|
Week 96
|
|
HIV RNA Mean Change from Baseline, log10 copies/ml
|
|
All patients
|
-1.93
(n=90 e)
|
-2.29 (n=64)
|
-1.87 (n=99)
|
-2.08 (n=65)
|
0.13
[‑0.12, 0.39]
|
0.14
[‑0.13, 0.41]
|
|
HIV RNA <50 copies/ml, %f (responder/evaluable)
|
|
All patients
|
36 (43/120)
|
32 (38/120)
|
42 (52/123
|
35 (41/118)
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
HIV RNA <50 copies/ml by select baseline PI substitutions,f, g % (responder/evaluable)
|
|
|
0-2
|
44 (28/63)
|
41 (26/63)
|
56 (32/57)
|
48 (26/54)
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
|
3
|
18 (2/11)
|
9 (1/11)
|
38 (6/16)
|
33 (5/15)
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
|
≥4
|
27 (12/45)
|
24 (11/45)
|
28 (14/50)
|
20 (10/49)
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
CD4 Mean Change from Baseline, cells/mm3
|
|
All patients
|
203 (n=370)
|
219 (n=363)
|
|
Baseline Characteristics
|
|
|
HIV RNA
<100,000 copies/ml
|
179 (n=183)
|
194 (n=183)
|
|
|
≥100,000 copies/ml
|
227 (n=187)
|
245 (n=180)
|
|
All patients
|
110 (n=83)
|
122 (n=60)
|
121 (n=94)
|
154 (n=60)
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a REYATAZ/RTV with tenofovir/emtricitabine (fixed dose 300 mg/200 mg tablets once daily).
b Lopinavir/RTV with tenofovir/emtricitabine (fixed dose 300 mg/200 mg tablets once daily).
c Intent-to-treat analysis, with missing values considered as failures.
d Number of patients evaluable.
In antiretroviral experienced patients
Study 045 is a randomised, multicenter trial comparing REYATAZ (300 mg once daily) with ritonavir (100 mg once daily) to REYATAZ (400 mg once daily) with saquinavir soft gelatine capsules (1,200 mg once daily), and to lopinavir + ritonavir (400/100 mg fixed dose combination twice daily), each in combination with tenofovir (see sections 4.5 and 4.8) and one NRTI, in 347 (of 358 randomised) patients with virologic failure on two or more prior regimens containing at least one PI, NRTI, and NNRTI. For randomised patients, the mean time of prior antiretroviral exposure was 138 weeks for PIs, 281 weeks for NRTIs, and 85 weeks for NNRTIs. At baseline, 34% of patients were receiving a PI and 60% were receiving an NNRTI. Fifteen of 120 (13%) patients in the REYATAZ + ritonavir treatment arm and 17 of 123 (14%) patients in the lopinavir + ritonavir arm had four or more of the PI substitutions L10, M46, I54, V82, I84, and L90. Thirty‑two percent of patients in the study had a viral strain with fewer than two NRTI substitutions. The mean baseline CD4 cell count was 337 cells/mm3 (range: 14 to 1,543 cells/mm3) and the mean baseline plasma HIV‑1 RNA level was 4.4 log10 copies/ml (range: 2.6 to 5.88 log10 copies/ml). The population included in this study was moderately pretreated.
The primary endpoint was the time‑averaged difference in change from baseline in HIV RNA through 48 weeks.
Through 48 weeks of treatment, the decreases from baseline in HIV RNA levels (primary endpoint) were 1.93 log10 copies/ml for REYATAZ + ritonavir and 1.87 log10 copies/ml for lopinavir + ritonavir. REYATAZ + ritonavir was similar (non‑inferior) to lopinavir + ritonavir on this efficacy measure (time‑averaged difference of 0.13, 97.5% confidenceb ATV/RTV with tenofovir/emtricitabine (fixed dose 300 mg/200 mg tablets once daily).
c LPV/RTV with tenofovir/emtricitabine (fixed dose 300 mg/200 mg tablets once daily).
d Confidence interval [‑0.12, 0.39])..
e Number of patients evaluable.
f Intent-to-treat analysis, with missing values considered as failures. Responders on LPV/RTV who completed treatment before Week 96 are excluded from Week 96 analysis. The proportion of patients with HIV RNA < 400 copies/ml were 53% and 43% for ATV/RTV and 54% and 46% for LPV/RTV at weeks 48 and 96 respectively.
g Select substitutions include any change at positions L10, K20, L24, V32, L33, M36, M46, G48, I50, I54, L63, A71, G73, V82, I84, and L90 (0-2, 3, 4 or more) at baseline.
NA = not applicable.
Through 48 weeks of treatment, the mean changes from baseline in HIV RNA levels for REYATAZ + ritonavir and lopinavir + ritonavir were similar (non‑inferior). Consistent results were obtained with the last observation carried forward method of analysis (time‑averaged difference of 0.11, 97.5% confidence interval [‑0.15, 0.36]). The proportions of patients with HIV RNA < 400 copies/ml in the REYATAZ + ritonavir arm and the lopinavir + ritonavir arm were 53% and 54%, respectively, by intent‑to‑treat analysis, with missing values considered as failures. The proportions of patients with HIV RNA < 50 copies/ml in the REYATAZ + ritonavir arm and the lopinavir + ritonavir arm were 36% and 42%, respectively. By as‑treated analysis, excluding missing values, the proportions of patients with HIV RNA < 400 copies/ml (< 50 copies/ml) in the REYATAZ + ritonavir arm and the lopinavir + ritonavir arm were 55% (40%) and 56% (46%), respectively. The mean increases from baseline in CD4 cell count were 110 cells/mm3 and 121 cells/mm3 in the REYATAZ + ritonavir and lopinavir + ritonavir arms, respectively.
Analyses of data through 96 Through 96 weeks of treatment demonstrated durability of antiviral activity. Mean, mean HIV RNA changes from baseline at Week 96 (‑2.29 log10 copies/ml for REYATAZ + ritonavir and ‑2.08 log10 copies/ml for lopinavir + ritonavir, time‑averaged difference of 0.14, 97.5% confidence interval [‑0.13, 0.41]) met criteria for non‑inferiority based on observed cases. Consistent results were obtained with the last observation carried forward method of analysis. The proportions of patients with HIV RNA <400 copies/ml (<50 copies/ml) for REYATAZ + ritonavir were 43% (32%) and for lopinavir + ritonavir were 46% (35%). Patients completing treatment while in response after 48 weeks were censored. By as‑treated analysis, excluding missing values, the proportions of patients with HIV RNA <400 copies/ml (<50 copies/ml) for REYATAZ + ritonavir were 84% (72%) and for lopinavir + ritonavir were 82% (72%). It is important to note that at time of the 96‑week analysis, 48 % of patients overall remained on study.
Through 48 weeks of treatment, two types of analyses were performed based on baseline genotypic mutations. The first consisted in assessing the HIV RNA change from baseline in the subgroup of patients with < or ≥ of 4 of the following set of mutations: 10, 20, 24, 32, 33, 36, 46, 48, 50, 54, 63, 71, 73, 82, 84 and 90.
The second consisted in assessing the HIV RNA change from baseline in the subgroup of patients with < or ≥ of 4 of the following more specific set of mutations: 10, 46, 54, 82, 84, 90. In the analysis performed for patients with ≥ 4 protease gene mutations among the following set of mutations 10, 20, 24, 32, 33, 36, 46, 48, 50, 54, 63, 71, 73, 82, 84 and 90, the results significantly favoured the lopinavir + ritonavir arm. There were too few patients with ≥ 4 of the second more specific set of mutations (i.e. 10, 46, 54, 82, 84, 90) to assess the comparability of the REYATAZ + ritonavir and lopinavir + ritonavir regimens, but reduced virologic activity may be anticipated among patients with this resistance profile.
REYATAZ + saquinavir was shown to be inferior to lopinavir + ritonavir.
5.2 Pharmacokinetic properties
Special populations
Impaired renal function: in healthy subjects, the renal elimination of unchanged atazanavir was approximately 7% of the administered dose. There are no pharmacokinetic data available on for REYATAZ with ritonavir in patients with renal insufficiency (see section 4.2); however, the impact of renal impairment on atazanavir elimination is anticipated to be minimal.. REYATAZ (without ritonavir) has been studied in adult patients with severe renal impairment (n=20), including those on haemodialysis, at multiple doses of 400 mg once daily. Although this study presented some limitations (i.e., unbound drug concentrations not studied), results suggested that the atazanavir pharmacokinetic parameters were decreased by 30% to 50% in patients undergoing haemodialysis compared to patients with normal renal function. The mechanism of this decrease is unknown. (See sections 4.2 and 4.4.)
9. DATE OF FIRST AUTHORISATION/RENEWAL OF THE AUTHORISATION
Date of first authorisation: 02 March 2004
Date of latest renewal : 09 February: 02 March 2009
10. DATE OF REVISION OF THE TEXT
9th FebruaryJuly 2009
Detailed information on this medicinal product is available on the website of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) http://www.emea.europa.eu/http://www.emea.europa.eu
|