A comparison of the FDA TLOVR and FDA Snapshot algorithms based on studies evaluating once-daily vs. twice daily lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) regimens
© King et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Published: 8 November 2010
The FDA TLOVR algorithm has been commonly used to assess virologic response to antiretroviral (ARV) regimens. The FDA Snapshot algorithm has been proposed to replace the TLOVR algorithm, as it is simpler and is expected to yield similar results. Multiple studies determined that efficacy of LPV/r dosed once-daily (QD) + nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) was statistically similar to LPV/r dosed twice-daily (BID) + NRTIs using the FDA TLOVR algorithm. The purpose of the analyses presented here is to compare the TLOVR and Snapshot algorithms in the context of studies evaluating QD vs. BID LPV/r-based regimens.
Three studies comparing LPV/r QD + NRTIs vs. LPV/r BID + NRTIs in ARV-naïve (Study 418, n=190; Study 730, n=664) or ARV-experienced (Study 802, n=599) subjects were analyzed. Study results through 48 and 96 weeks were compared using the FDA TLOVR and FDA Snapshot algorithms. The Snapshot algorithm differs from the TLOVR algorithm primarily in its focus only on the visit of interest: a subject is a responder if and only if the subject has an HIV-1 RNA level <50 copies/mL at the visit of interest.
Percent of subjects with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL using FDA TLOVR and Snapshot algorithms
The FDA Snapshot analysis is easier to understand, simpler to calculate, and gives similar results compared to the FDA TLOVR algorithm. Efficacy was similar for LPV/r QD-based vs. BID-based regimens in ARV-naïve subjects as well as ARV-experienced subjects, irrespective of timepoint or analysis algorithm.
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.