Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 19, 2017, 07:45:15 AM

Login with username, password and session length

  • Total Posts: 722444
  • Total Topics: 58705
  • Online Today: 303
  • Online Ever: 1421
  • (August 13, 2016, 05:18:44 AM)
Users Online
Users: 4
Guests: 281
Total: 285


Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Gilead quad pill v atripla  (Read 3165 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tommy246

  • Standard
  • Member
  • Posts: 435
Gilead quad pill v atripla
« on: February 20, 2010, 01:22:04 PM »
Does this new quad pill have any advantages over other good meds such as atripla for example
jan 06 neg
dec 08 pos cd4 505 ,16%, 1,500vl
april 09 cd4 635 ,16%,60,000
july 09 ,cd4 545,17%,80,000
aug 09,hosptal 18days pneumonia cd190,225,000,15%
1 week later cd4 415 20%
nov 09 cd4 591 ,vl 59,000,14%,started atripla
dec 09  cd4 787, vl 266, 16%
march 2010  cd4 720 vl non detectable -20  20%
june 2010  cd4  680, 21%, ND

Offline Inchlingblue

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,120
  • Chad Ochocinco PETA Ad
Re: Gilead quad pill v atripla
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2010, 05:48:48 PM »
So far it's shown to be comparable or "non-inferior" to Atripla, and with fewer side effects, particularly CNS ones.

I've also heard that once Isentress is approved for once-a-day use it will be formulated with Truvada as one pill.

My concern is actually with Truvada (because of the tenofovir), which almost everyone is on nowadays. I'm hoping something better comes along in the next few years.


Quad Pill and Boosting Drug Show Well in Studies


Increased Risk of Chronic Kidney Disease Linked to Tenofovir and Atazanavir


Offline bobino

  • Member
  • Posts: 264
Re: Gilead quad pill v atripla
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2010, 03:47:39 AM »
Why would Gilead agree to license a drug using Truvada and Merck's Isentress when Gilead's about to launch its own integrase inhibitor, which will be part of the quad pill?  Doesn't seem to make business sense to me.
Suivons les rivières
Gardons les torrents
Restons en colère
Soyons vigilants

Offline Inchlingblue

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,120
  • Chad Ochocinco PETA Ad
Re: Gilead quad pill v atripla
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2010, 10:26:23 AM »
Apparently there are some kidney concerns with the Quad. Too soon to know for sure.

QUAD Four-in-One Pill as Strong as Atripla, But a Kidney Concern Arises
17th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, February 16-19, 2010, San Francisco
Mark Mascolini
A once-daily antiretroviral combining the integrase inhibitor elvitegravir with a non-ritonavir booster (GS-9350), tenofovir (TDF), and emtricitabine (FTC) proved as potent at Atripla (efavirenz plus TDF/FTC) after 24 weeks in previously untreated people [1].
This small double-blind, double-dummy phase 2 trial found substantially fewer overall side effects with the four-in-one pill (called Quad) than with Atripla. But presenter Calvin Cohen devoted a goodly number of slides to addressing potential concerns about nephrotoxicity with GS-9350. Kidney trouble with GS-9350 would be a blow to Quad development because of TDF's well-known effect on creatinine clearance. But Cohen maintained the impact of GS-9350 on creatinine approximates that of an over-the-counter ulcer drug.
A separate phase 2 study by the same investigators found GS-9350 (now called cobicistat) equivalent to ritonavir in boosting the protease inhibitor atazanavir with TDF/FTC in previously untreated people. No one in either study had virus resistant to nucleosides, nonnucleosides, or protease inhibitors when the trials began.
The Quad-versus-Atripla trial involved 48 antiretroviral-naive people randomized to Quad and 23 randomized to Atripla. Most were men and about three quarters were white. Age averaged 36 in the Quad group and 35 in the Atripla group. Both groups had an average viral load around 40,000 copies. Median pretreatment CD4 count stood at 354 in the Quad group and 438 in the Atripla group. Fewer than 10% in either arm had AIDS.
After 24 weeks 90% taking Quad and 83% taking Atripla had a viral load under 50 copies in a missing-data-equal-failure analysis. In an intent-to-treat analysis that excluded missing data, 96% taking Quad and 95% taking Atripla had a sub-50 load at 24 weeks. CD4 counts climbed an average of 161 in the Quad group and 113 in the Atripla group.
Overall safety results favored Quad, with 37% having a study drug-related adverse event on Quad versus 57% on Atripla. The only two grade 3/4 safety problems occurred in the Atripla arm. However, by week 24 average serum creatinine rose 0.14 mg/dL with Quad and 0.04 with Atripla. Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the Cockcroft-Gault method was -18 mL/min with Quad versus -7 mL/min with Atripla. Estimated glomerular filtration rate at week 24 averaged 111 mL/min with Quad and 126 mL/min with Atripla.
Further analysis of a study of healthy volunteers suggested GS-9350 has no effect on actual glomerular filtration rate, even though it lowers the estimated rate. Cohen explained that creatinine is excreted primarily by glomerular filtration, but about 10% to 15% is eliminated by active tubular secretion. Thus he hypothesized that GS-9350 may inhibit tubular secretion of creatinine, as does the over-the-counter H2-receptor antagonist cimetidine. Certainly GS-9350 researchers will analyze these issues closely as clinical development of Quad proceeds.
Pretreatment characteristics in the trial comparing GS-9350 with ritonavir as an atazanavir booster were equivalent to those in the Quad-versus-Atripla study. This second trial randomized 50 people to GS-9350 and 29 to ritonavir. Two people dropped out of the GS-9350 group because of adverse events, compared with 1 dropout in the ritonavir arm. Two people taking GS-9350 had study drug-related adverse events, compared with none taking ritonavir.
By two intent-to-treat analyses, equivalent high proportions in both arms had a sub-50 viral load at week 24. CD4 gains averaged 200 in both groups.


« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 10:44:01 AM by Inchlingblue »


Terms of Membership for these forums

© 2017 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.