Trial reportDrugs in R&D2011
Boosted tipranavir versus darunavir in treatment-experienced patients: observational data from the randomized POTENT trial.
Trial report in Drugs in R&D, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Virologic Effectiveness of Abacavir/Lamivudine with Darunavir/Ritonavir Versus Other Protease Inhibitors in Treatment-Experienced HIV-Infected Patients in Clinical Practice.Clinical drug investigation · 2017Article
- Review
- Tipranavir in the protease inhibitors arena.Drugs in R&D · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe POTENT trial compared the safety and efficacy of tipranavir/ritonavir (TPV/r) to darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r), each with an optimized background regimen (OBR) in triple-class experienced HIV-1-infected patients with resistance to more than one protease inhibitor (PI). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsPOTENT was a prospective, open-label study of triple-class (PI, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NNRTI], nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTI]), treatment-experienced, HIV-positive patients. Subjects were randomized to either TPV/r (500/200 mg twice daily) or DRV/r (600/100 mg twice daily) on a genotype-guided, investigator-selected OBR. CD4+ counts and HIV viral loads were assayed at key timepoints. The primary endpoint was time to virologic failure (viral load ≥500copies/mL). POTENT was prematurely terminated due to slow enrollment. Thirty-nine patients were treated with either TPV/r (n = 19) or DRV/r (n = 20); 82% were male, 77% White, with mean age of 43.6 years. Mean baseline HIV RNA was 3.9 log(10) copies/mL. Median prior antiretrovirals was 11, with no prior raltegravir or maraviroc exposure. Raltegravir was the most common novel class agent in the OBRs (n = 14 TPV/r; n = 12 DRV/r). In both groups, patients achieved mean viral load decreases ≥2 log(10) copies/mL by week 8, and by week 12 mean CD4+ counts rose by 40-50 cells/mm3. Total observation time was 32 weeks. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 21% (TPV/r) and 25% (DRV/r) of patients. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: TPV/r- and DRV/r-based regimens showed similar short-term safety and efficacy. These data support the use of next-generation PIs such as tipranavir or darunavir with novel class antiretroviral agents (integrase inhibitors, CCR5 antagonists, or fusion inhibitors).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.