Atazanavir/ritonavir with lamivudine as maintenance therapy in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients: 96 week outcomes of a randomized trial

Objectives: To investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of a treatment switch to dual ART with atazanavir/ritonavir+lamivudine versus continuing a standard regimen with atazanavir/ritonavir+2NRTI in virologically suppressed patients. Methods: ATLAS-M is a 96 week open-label, randomized, non-inferiority (margin -12%) trial enrolling HIV-infected adults on atazanavir/ritonavir+2NRTI, with stable HIV-RNA < 50 copies/mL and CD4 counts.200 cells/mm 3 . At baseline, patients were randomized 1:1 to switch to atazanavir/ritonavir+lamivudine or to continue the previous regimen. Here, we report the 96 week efficacy and safety data. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01599364. Results: Overall, 266 subjects were enrolled (133 in each arm). At 96 weeks, in the ITT population, patients free of treatment failure totalled 103 (77.4%) with atazanavir/ritonavir+lamivudine and 87 (65.4%) with triple therapy (difference +12.0%, 95% CI +1.2/+22.8, P=0.030), demonstrating the superiority of dual therapy. Two (1.5%) and 9 (6.8%) virological failures occurred in the dual-therapy arm and the triple-therapy arm, respectively, without development of resistance to any study drug. Clinical adverse events occurred at similar rates in both arms. A higher frequency of grade 3-4 hyperbilirubinemia (66.9% versus 50.4%, P=0.006) and hypertriglyceridaemia (6.8% versus 1.5%, P=0.031) occurred with dual therapy, although this never led to treatment discontinuation. A significant improvement in renal function and lumbar spine bone mineral density occurred in the dual-therapy arm. The evolution of CD4, HIV-DNA levels and neurocognitive performance was similar in both arms. Conclusions: In this randomized study, a treatment switch to atazanavir/ritonavir+lamivudine was superior over the continuation of atazanavir/ritonavir+2NRTI in virologically suppressed patients, with a sustained benefit in terms of improved renal function and bone mineral density

Treatment simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir+lamivudine versus maintenance of atazanavir/ritonavir+two NRTIs in virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected patients: 48 week results from a randomized trial (ATLAS-M)

none149noBackground: Combination ART (cART)-related toxicities and costs have prompted the need for treatment simplification. The ATLAS-M trial explored 48 week non-inferior efficacy of simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine versus maintaining three-drug atazanavir/ritonavir-based cART in virologically suppressed patients. Methods: We performed an open-label, multicentre, randomized, non-inferiority study, enrolling HIV-infected adults on atazanavir/ritonavir+two NRTIs, with stable HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL and CD4+>200 cells/mm3. Main exclusion criteria were hepatitis B virus coinfection, past virological failure on or resistance to study drugs, recent AIDS and pregnancy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to either switch to 300mg of atazanavir/ 100mg of ritonavir once daily and 300mg of lamivudine once daily (atazanavir/ritonavir+lamivudine arm) or to continue the previous regimen (atazanavir/ritonavir+two NRTIs arm). The primary study outcome was the maintenance of HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL at week 48 of the ITT-exposed (ITT-e) analysis with switch"failure. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01599364. Results: Between July 2011 and June 2014, 266 patients were randomized (133 to each arm). After 48 weeks, the primary study outcome was met by 119 of 133 patients (89.5%) in the atazanavir/ritonavir+lamivudine arm and 106 of 133 patients (79.7%) in the atazanavir/ritonavir+two NRTIs arm [difference atazanavir/ritonavir+ lamivudine versus atazanavir/ritonavir+two NRTIs arm: +9.8% (95% CI+1.2 to+18.4)], demonstrating non-inferiority and superior efficacy of the atazanavir/ritonavir+lamivudine arm. Virological failure occurred in two (1.5%) patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir+lamivudine arm and six (4.5%) patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir+ two NRTIs arm, without resistance selection. A similar proportion of adverse events occurred in both arms. Conclusions: Treatment simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir+lamivudine showed non-inferior efficacy (superiority on post-hoc analysis) and a comparable safety profile over continuing atazanavir/ritonavir+two NRTIs in virologically suppressed patients.mixedDi Giambenedetto, S.; Fabbiani, M.; Quiros Roldan, E.; Latini, A.; D'Ettorre, G.; Antinori, A.; Castagna, A.; Orofino, G.; Francisci, D.; Chinello, P.; Madeddu, G.; Grima, P.; Rusconi, S.; Di Pietro, M.; Mondi, A.; Ciccarelli, N.; Borghetti, A.; Focà, E.; Colafigli, M.; De Luca, A.; Cauda, R.; Baldonero, E.; Belmonti, S.; D'Avino, A.; Gagliardini, R.; Lamonica, S.; Lombardi, F.; Sidella, L.; Tamburrini, E.; Visconti, E.; Giacometti, A.; Barchiesi, F.; Castelli, P.; Cirioni, O.; Mazzocato, S.; Blanc, P.; Degli Esposti, A.; Del Pin, B.; Mariabelli, E.; Marini, S.; Poggi, A.; Amadasi, S.; Apostoli, A.; Biasi, L.; Bonito, A.; Brianese, N.; Compostella, S.; Ferraresi, A.; Motta, D.; Mughini, M.T.; Celesia, B.M.; Gussio, M.; Sofia, S.; Tana, M.; Tundo, P.; Viscoli, C.; De Hoffer, L.; Di Biagio, A.; Grignolo, S.; Parisini, A.; Schenone, E.; Taramasso, L.; Manconi, P.E.; Boccone, A.; Ortu, F.; Piano, P.; Serusi, L.; Puoti, M.; Moioli, M.C.; Rossotti, R.; Travi, G.; Ventura, F.; Galli, M.; Di Nardo Stuppino, S.; Di Cristo, V.; Giacomelli, A.; Vimercati, V.; Viale, P.; Gori, A.; Rizzardini, G.; Capetti, A.; Carenzi, L.; Mazza, F.; Meraviglia, P.; Rosa, S.; Zucchi, P.; Mineo, M.; Giuliani, M.; Pacifici, A.; Pimpinelli, F.; Solivetti, F.; Stivali, F.; Angelici, F.; Bellagamba, R.; Delle Rose, D.; Fezza, R.; Libertone, R.; Mosti, S.; Narciso, P.; Nicastri, E.; Ottou, S.; Tomassi, C.; Vlassi, C.; Zaccarelli, M.; Zoppè, F.; Vullo, V.; Altavilla, F.; Ceccarelli, G.; Fantauzzi, A.; Gebremeskel, S.; Lo Menzo, S.; Mezzaroma, I.; Tierno, F.; Petrosillo, N.; Boumis, E.; Cicalini, S.; Grilli, E.; Musso, M.; Stella, C.; Mura, M.S.; Bagella, P.; Mannazzu, M.; Soddu, V.; Caramello, P.; Carcieri, C.; Carosella, S.; Farenga, M.; Scotton, P.G.; Rossi, M.C.; Concia, E.; Corsini, F.; Gricolo, C.; Lanzafame, M.; Lattuada, E.; Leonardi, S.; Rigo, F.; Lazzarin, A.; Bigoloni, A.; Carini, E.; Nozza, S.; Spagnuolo, V.; Belfiori, B.; Malincarne, L.; Schiaroli, E.; Sfara, C.; Tosti, A.; Sacchini, D.; Ruggieri, A.; Valdatta, C.Di Giambenedetto, S.; Fabbiani, M.; Quiros Roldan, E.; Latini, A.; D'Ettorre, G.; Antinori, A.; Castagna, A.; Orofino, G.; Francisci, D.; Chinello, P.; Madeddu, G.; Grima, P.; Rusconi, S.; Di Pietro, M.; Mondi, A.; Ciccarelli, N.; Borghetti, A.; Focà, E.; Colafigli, M.; De Luca, A.; Cauda, R.; Baldonero, E.; Belmonti, S.; D'Avino, A.; Gagliardini, R.; Lamonica, S.; Lombardi, F.; Sidella, L.; Tamburrini, E.; Visconti, E.; Giacometti, A.; Barchiesi, F.; Castelli, P.; Cirioni, O.; Mazzocato, S.; Blanc, P.; Degli Esposti, A.; Del Pin, B.; Mariabelli, E.; Marini, S.; Poggi, A.; Amadasi, S.; Apostoli, A.; Biasi, L.; Bonito, A.; Brianese, N.; Compostella, S.; Ferraresi, A.; Motta, D.; Mughini, M. T.; Celesia, B. M.; Gussio, M.; Sofia, S.; Tana, M.; Tundo, P.; Viscoli, C.; De Hoffer, L.; Di Biagio, A.; Grignolo, S.; Parisini, A.; Schenone, E.; Taramasso, L.; Manconi, P. E.; Boccone, A.; Ortu, F.; Piano, P.; Serusi, L.; Puoti, M.; Moioli, M. C.; Rossotti, R.; Travi, G.; Ventura, F.; Galli, M.; Di Nardo Stuppino, S.; Di Cristo, V.; Giacomelli, A.; Vimercati, V.; Viale, P.; Gori, A.; Rizzardini, G.; Capetti, A.; Carenzi, L.; Mazza, F.; Meraviglia, P.; Rosa, S.; Zucchi, P.; Mineo, M.; Giuliani, M.; Pacifici, A.; Pimpinelli, F.; Solivetti, F.; Stivali, F.; Angelici, F.; Bellagamba, R.; Delle Rose, D.; Fezza, R.; Libertone, R.; Mosti, S.; Narciso, P.; Nicastri, E.; Ottou, S.; Tomassi, C.; Vlassi, C.; Zaccarelli, M.; Zoppè, F.; Vullo, V.; Altavilla, F.; Ceccarelli, G.; Fantauzzi, A.; Gebremeskel, S.; Lo Menzo, S.; Mezzaroma, I.; Tierno, F.; Petrosillo, N.; Boumis, E.; Cicalini, S.; Grilli, E.; Musso, M.; Stella, C.; Mura, M. S.; Bagella, P.; Mannazzu, M.; Soddu, V.; Caramello, P.; Carcieri, C.; Carosella, S.; Farenga, M.; Scotton, P. G.; Rossi, M. C.; Concia, E.; Corsini, F.; Gricolo, C.; Lanzafame, M.; Lattuada, E.; Leonardi, S.; Rigo, F.; Lazzarin, A.; Bigoloni, A.; Carini, E.; Nozza, S.; Spagnuolo, V.; Belfiori, B.; Malincarne, L.; Schiaroli, E.; Sfara, C.; Tosti, A.; Sacchini, D.; Ruggieri, A.; Valdatta, C

Genomic Designing for Climate-Smart Tomato

Tomato is the first vegetable consumed in the world. It is grown in very different conditions and areas, mainly in field for processing tomatoes while fresh-market tomatoes are often produced in greenhouses. Tomato faces many environmental stresses, both biotic and abiotic. Today many new genomic resources are available allowing an acceleration of the genetic progress. In this chapter, we will first present the main challenges to breed climate-smart tomatoes. The breeding objectives relative to productivity, fruit quality, and adaptation to environmental stresses will be presented with a special focus on how climate change is impacting these objectives. In the second part, the genetic and genomic resources available will be presented. Then, traditional and molecular breeding techniques will be discussed. A special focus will then be presented on ecophysiological modeling, which could constitute an important strategy to define new ideotypes adapted to breeding objectives. Finally, we will illustrate how new biotechnological tools are implemented and could be used to breed climate-smart tomatoes