Docality.com Logo
 
Dr. Randi  Leavitt  Md image

Dr. Randi Leavitt Md

1716 Somerset St
Dresher PA 19025
215 308-8789
Medical School: Other - Unknown
Accepts Medicare: No
Participates In eRX: No
Participates In PQRS: No
Participates In EHR: No
License #: MD050358L
NPI: 1801292040
Taxonomy Codes:
207R00000X

Request Appointment Information

Awards & Recognitions

About Us

Practice Philosophy

Conditions

Medical Malpractice Cases

None Found

Medical Board Sanctions

None Found

Referrals

None Found

Publications

Comparison of the metabolic effects of ritonavir-boosted darunavir or atazanavir versus raltegravir, and the impact of ritonavir plasma exposure: ACTG 5257. - Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
Metabolic effects following combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) vary by regimen type. Changes in metabolic effects were assessed following cART in the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) A5257 study, and correlated with plasma ritonavir trough concentrations (C24).Treatment-naive adult subjects were randomized to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or darunavir, or raltegravir-based cART. Changes in lipids and other metabolic outcomes over time were estimated. Differences between arms were estimated with 97.5% confidence intervals and compared using pairwise Student t tests. Associations between ritonavir C24 and lipid changes at week 48 were evaluated via linear regression.Analyses included 1797 subjects with baseline fasting data. Baseline lipid profiles and metabolic syndrome rates (approximately 21%) were similar across arms. Comparable increases occurred in total cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with the boosted protease inhibitors (PIs); each PI had greater increases relative to raltegravir (all P ≤ .001 at week 96). Metabolic syndrome incident rates by week 96 (approximately 22%) were not different across arms. Ritonavir C24 was not different by arm (P = .89) (median, 69 ng/mL and 74 ng/mL in the atazanavir and darunavir arms, respectively) and were not associated with changes in lipid measures (all P > .1).Raltegravir produced the most favorable lipid profile. Metabolic syndrome rates were high at baseline and increased to the same degree in all arms. Ritonavir C24 was not different in the PI arms and had no relationship with the modest but comparable increases in lipids observed with either atazanavir or darunavir. The long-term clinical significance of the lipid changes noted with the PIs relative to raltegravir deserves further evaluation.NCT 00811954.© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Safety Profile of the Merck Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Clade B gag DNA Plasmid Vaccine With and Without Adjuvants. - Open forum infectious diseases
The immunogenicity results from 3 phase I trials of the Merck DNA human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) vaccine have previously been reported. Because preventive DNA vaccine strategies continue to be leveraged for diverse infections, the safety and tolerability results from these studies can inform the field moving forward, particularly regarding adverse reactions and adjuvants. No serious vaccine-related adverse events were reported during the 3-dose priming phase. Pain at the injection site was more common with adjuvanted formulations than with the phosphate-buffered saline diluent alone. Febrile reactions were usually low grade. Although the AlPO4 or CRL1005 adjuvants used in these studies did not significantly enhance the immunogenicity of the DNA vaccine, adverse events were numerically more common with adjuvanted formulations than without adjuvants.
Efficacy and tolerability of 3 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing antiretroviral regimens for treatment-naive volunteers infected with HIV-1: a randomized, controlled equivalence trial. - Annals of internal medicine
Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy is not suitable for all treatment-naive HIV-infected persons.To evaluate 3 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing initial antiretroviral regimens to show equivalence for virologic efficacy and tolerability.A phase 3, open-label study randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio with follow-up for at least 96 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00811954).57 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico.Treatment-naive persons aged 18 years or older with HIV-1 RNA levels greater than 1000 copies/mL without resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or protease inhibitors.Atazanavir, 300 mg/d, with ritonavir, 100 mg/d; raltegravir, 400 mg twice daily; or darunavir, 800 mg/d, with ritonavir, 100 mg/d, plus combination emtricitabine, 200 mg/d, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 300 mg/d.Virologic failure, defined as a confirmed HIV-1 RNA level greater than 1000 copies/mL at or after 16 weeks and before 24 weeks or greater than 200 copies/mL at or after 24 weeks, and tolerability failure, defined as discontinuation of atazanavir, raltegravir, or darunavir for toxicity. A secondary end point was a combination of virologic efficacy and tolerability.Among 1809 participants, all pairwise comparisons of incidence of virologic failure over 96 weeks showed equivalence within a margin of equivalence defined as -10% to 10%. Raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir were equivalent for tolerability, whereas ritonavir-boosted atazanavir resulted in a 12.7% and 9.2% higher incidence of tolerability discontinuation than raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir, respectively, primarily because of hyperbilirubinemia. For combined virologic efficacy and tolerability, ritonavir-boosted darunavir was superior to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, and raltegravir was superior to both protease inhibitors. Antiretroviral resistance at the time of virologic failure was rare but more frequent with raltegravir.The trial was open-label, and ritonavir was not provided.Over 2 years, all 3 regimens attained high and equivalent rates of virologic control. Tolerability of regimens containing raltegravir or ritonavir-boosted darunavir was superior to that of the ritonavir-boosted atazanavir regimen.National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Comparison of illumina and 454 deep sequencing in participants failing raltegravir-based antiretroviral therapy. - PloS one
The impact of raltegravir-resistant HIV-1 minority variants (MVs) on raltegravir treatment failure is unknown. Illumina sequencing offers greater throughput than 454, but sequence analysis tools for viral sequencing are needed. We evaluated Illumina and 454 for the detection of HIV-1 raltegravir-resistant MVs.A5262 was a single-arm study of raltegravir and darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve patients. Pre-treatment plasma was obtained from 5 participants with raltegravir resistance at the time of virologic failure. A control library was created by pooling integrase clones at predefined proportions. Multiplexed sequencing was performed with Illumina and 454 platforms at comparable costs. Illumina sequence analysis was performed with the novel snp-assess tool and 454 sequencing was analyzed with V-Phaser.Illumina sequencing resulted in significantly higher sequence coverage and a 0.095% limit of detection. Illumina accurately detected all MVs in the control library at ≥0.5% and 7/10 MVs expected at 0.1%. 454 sequencing failed to detect any MVs at 0.1% with 5 false positive calls. For MVs detected in the patient samples by both 454 and Illumina, the correlation in the detected variant frequencies was high (R2 = 0.92, P<0.001). Illumina sequencing detected 2.4-fold greater nucleotide MVs and 2.9-fold greater amino acid MVs compared to 454. The only raltegravir-resistant MV detected was an E138K mutation in one participant by Illumina sequencing, but not by 454.In participants of A5262 with raltegravir resistance at virologic failure, baseline raltegravir-resistant MVs were rarely detected. At comparable costs to 454 sequencing, Illumina demonstrated greater depth of coverage, increased sensitivity for detecting HIV MVs, and fewer false positive variant calls.
Durable efficacy and safety of raltegravir versus efavirenz when combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: final 5-year results from STARTMRK. - Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)
STARTMRK, a phase III noninferiority trial of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based therapy in treatment-naive patients, remained blinded until its conclusion at 5 years. We now report the final study results.Previously untreated patients without baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine were eligible for a randomized study of tenofovir/emtricitabine plus either raltegravir or efavirenz. Yearly analyses were planned, with primary and secondary end points stipulated at weeks 48 and 96, respectively. The primary efficacy outcome was the percentage of patients with viral RNA (vRNA) levels <50 copies per milliliter counting noncompleters as failures (NC=F). Changes from baseline CD4 count were computed using an observed-failure approach to missing data. No formal hypotheses were formulated for testing at week 240.Overall, 71 of 281 raltegravir recipients (25%) and 98 of 282 efavirenz recipients (35%) discontinued the study; discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 14 (5%) and 28 (10%) patients in the respective groups. In the primary NC=F efficacy analysis at week 240, 198 of 279 (71.0%) raltegravir recipients and 171 of 279 (61.3%) efavirenz recipients had vRNA levels <50 copies per milliliter, yielding a treatment difference {Δ [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 9.5 (1.7 to 17.3)}. Generally comparable between-treatment differences were seen in both the protocol-stipulated sensitivity analyses and the prespecified subgroup analyses. The mean (95% CI) increments in baseline CD4 counts at week 240 were 374 and 312 cells per cubic millimeter in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Δ(95% CI) = 62 (22 to 102)]. Overall, significantly fewer raltegravir than efavirenz recipients experienced neuropsychiatric side effects (39.1% vs 64.2%, P < 0.001) or drug-related clinical adverse events (52.0% vs 80.1%, P < 0.001).In this exploratory analysis of combination therapy with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive patients at week 240, vRNA suppression rates and increases in baseline CD4 counts were significantly higher in raltegravir than efavirenz recipients. Over the entire study, fewer patients experienced neuropsychiatric and drug-related adverse events in the raltegravir group than in the efavirenz group. Based on better virologic and immunologic outcomes after 240 weeks, raltegravir/tenofovir/emtricitabine seemed to have superior efficacy compared with efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine.
Efficacy of raltegravir versus efavirenz when combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected patients: week-192 overall and subgroup analyses from STARTMRK. - HIV clinical trials
We compared 4 years of antiretroviral therapy with tenofovir/emtricitabine and either raltegravir or efavirenz from the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients. Through 192 weeks, raltegravir produced durable and consistent viral suppression and immune restoration compared with efavirenz irrespective of baseline demographic and prognostic factors, including in patients with high viral loads.
A nucleoside- and ritonavir-sparing regimen containing atazanavir plus raltegravir in antiretroviral treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients: SPARTAN study results. - HIV clinical trials
Nucleoside and ritonavir (RTV) toxicities have led to increased interest in nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and RTV-sparing antiretroviral regimens. SPARTAN was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, noncomparative pilot study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and resistance profile of an investigational NRTI- and RTV-sparing regimen (experimental atazanavir [ATV] dose 300 mg bid + raltegravir [RAL] 400 mg bid [ATV+RAL]). The reference regimen consisted of ATV 300 mg/RTV 100 mg qd + tenofovir (TDF) 300 mg/emtricitabine (FTC) 200 mg qd (ATV/r+TDF/FTC).Treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients with HIV-RNA ≥5,000 copies/mL were randomized 2:1 to receive twice-daily ATV+RAL (n=63) or once-daily ATV/r+TDF/FTC (n=31). Efficacy at 24 weeks was determined by confirmed virologic response (CVR; HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL) with noncom-pleters counted as failures based on all treated subjects.The proportion of patients with CVR HIV RNA <50 copies/mL at week 24 was 74.6% (47/63) in the ATV+RAL arm and 63.3% (19/30) in the ATV/r+TDF/FTC arm. Systemic exposure to ATV in the ATV+RAL regimen was higher than historically observed with ATV/r+TDF/ FTC. Incidence of Grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia was higher on ATV+RAL (20.6%; 13/63) than on ATV/r+TDF/FTC (0%). The criteria for resistance testing (virologic failure [VF]: HIV-RNA ≥400 copies/mL) was met in 6/63 patients on ATV+RAL, and 1/30 on ATV/r+TDF/FTC; 4 VFs on ATV+RAL developed RAL resistance.ATV+RAL, an experimental NRTI- and RTV-sparing regimen, achieved virologic suppression rates comparable to current standards of care for treatment-naïve patients. The overall profile did not appear optimal for further clinical development given its development of resistance to RAL and higher rates of hyperbilirubinemia with twice-daily ATV compared with ATV/RTV.
Raltegravir once daily or twice daily in previously untreated patients with HIV-1: a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. - The Lancet. Infectious diseases
Twice-daily raltegravir with once-daily tenofovir-emtricitabine is an effective initial antiretroviral regimen for patients with HIV-1. On the basis of pharmacokinetic data suggesting efficacy of once-daily raltegravir and because adherence is often improved with once-daily dosing, we aimed to compare these dosing schedules.In our international, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority study, we enrolled antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV RNA loads of more than 5000 copies per mL and no baseline resistance to tenofovir or emtricitabine at 83 centres worldwide. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) by use of a computer-generated sequence to receive raltegravir once daily (two 400 mg tablets taken together every 24 h), or twice daily (one 400 mg tablet every 12 h), both in combination with once-daily co-formulated tenofovir 300 mg plus emtricitabine 150 mg. The primary outcome was virological response at 48 weeks (viral RNA loads <50 copies per mL) in patients who received at least one dose of study drug, counting non-completers as failure. We assessed non-inferiority in terms of the proportion of patients in both treatment groups who achieved the primary outcome, with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00745823.From Oct 15, 2008, to Nov 2, 2009, we randomly allocated 775 patients, of whom 382 (99%) of 386 patients in the once-daily group and 388 (99%) of 389 in the twice-daily group received at least one dose of study drug. At baseline, 304 (39%) of 770 treated patients had viral loads of more than 100,000 copies per mL and 188 (24%) had CD4 cell counts of fewer than 200 cells per μL. 318 (83%) of 382 patients in the once-daily group had virological response compared with 343 (89%) of 386 in the twice-daily group (difference -5·7%, 95% CI -10·7 to -0·83; p=0·044). Serious adverse events were reported in 26 (7%) of 382 once-daily recipients and 40 (10%) of 388 twice-daily recipients, and adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in four (1%) patients in each group.Despite high response rates with both regimens, once-daily raltegravir cannot be recommended in place of twice-daily dosing.Merck.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Long-term treatment with raltegravir or efavirenz combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine for treatment-naive human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected patients: 156-week results from STARTMRK. - Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
We compared 3 years of antiretroviral therapy with raltegravir or efavirenz as part of a combination regimen in the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naive patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).Eligible patients with HIV-1 RNA (vRNA) levels >5000 copies/mL and without baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine were randomized in a double-blind, noninferiority study to receive raltegravir or efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine. Outcomes included viral suppression, adverse events, and changes from baseline metabolic parameters. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans were obtained on a convenience sample of patients at prespecified time points to assess changes in body fat composition.At week 156 counting noncompleters as failures, 212 (75.4%) of 281 versus 192 (68.1%) of 282 had vRNA levels <50 copies/mL in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Δ (95% CI) = 7.3% (-0.2, 14.7), noninferiority P < .001]. Mean changes from baseline CD4 count were 332 and 295 cells/mm³ in the raltegravir and efavirenz arms, respectively [Δ (95% CI) = 37 (4, 69)]. Consistent virologic and immunologic efficacy was maintained across prespecified demographic and baseline prognostic subgroups for both treatment groups. Fewer drug-related clinical adverse events (49% vs 80%; P < .001) occurred in raltegravir than efavirenz recipients, with discontinuations due to adverse events in 5% and 7%, respectively. Elevations in fasting lipid levels (including LDL- and HDL-cholesterol) were consistently lower in the raltegravir than efavirenz group (P < .005). Fat gain was 19% in 25 raltegravir recipients and 31% in 32 efavirenz recipients at week 156.When combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive patients, raltegravir produced durable viral suppression and immune restoration that was at least equivalent to efavirenz through 156 weeks of therapy. Both regimens were well tolerated, but raltegravir was associated with fewer drug-related clinical adverse events and smaller elevations in lipid levels. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00369941.
Clinical efficacy of raltegravir against B and non-B subtype HIV-1 in phase III clinical studies. - AIDS (London, England)
We evaluated the long-term efficacy of raltegravir according to HIV-1 subtype (B and non-B) using data from three phase III studies in treatment-experienced (BENCHMRK-1 and 2) and treatment-naive (STARTMRK) HIV-infected patients.HIV-1 subtypes were identified from baseline plasma specimens using genotypic data of the PhenoSense GT test (Monogram Biosciences, South San Francisco, California, USA). Non-B subtypes were combined for the current analyses due to small numbers of each specific subtype. An observed failure approach was used (only discontinuations due to lack of efficacy were treated as failures). Resistance evaluation was performed in patients with documented virologic failure.Seven hundred and forty-three patients received raltegravir and 519 received comparator (efavirenz in STARTMRK; optimized background therapy in BENCHMRK). Non-B subtype virus (A, A/C, A/D, A/G, A1, AE, AG, B/G, BF, C, D, D/F, F, F1, G, and complex) was isolated at baseline in 98 (13%) raltegravir recipients and 62 (12%) comparator recipients. Subtypes AE and C were most common, isolated in 41 and 43 patients, respectively. The proportion of raltegravir recipients achieving HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml was similar between non-B and B subtypes (STARTMRK: 94.5 vs. 88.7%; BENCHMRK-1 and 2: 66.7 vs. 60.7%); change in CD4 cell count also was similar between non-B and B subtypes (STARTMRK: 243 vs. 221 cells/μl; BENCHMRK-1 and 2: 121 vs. 144 cells/μl). Phenotypic resistance to raltegravir in non-B virus was associated with integrase mutations observed previously in subtype B virus.In phase III studies in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, raltegravir showed comparable and potent clinical efficacy against B and non-B HIV-1 subtypes.

Map & Directions

1716 Somerset St Dresher, PA 19025
View Directions In Google Maps

Nearby Doctors

3251 Lenape Dr
Dresher, PA 19025
215 840-0808
830 Twining Rd Suite 9
Dresher, PA 19025
215 410-0441
1750 Limekiln Pike
Dresher, PA 19025
215 284-4000
1615 Limekiln Pike
Dresher, PA 19025
215 434-4740
1444 Candlebrook Dr
Dresher, PA 19025
215 350-0333
1615 Limekiln Pike
Dresher, PA 19025
215 434-4740
3200 Ayr Ln
Drseher, PA 19025
215 308-8451
1750 Limekiln Pike
Dresher, PA 19025
215 284-4000
1415 Southwind Way
Dresher, PA 19025
215 419-9348