Treatment outcomes of recommended first-line antiretroviral regimens in resource-limited clinics.

Institute of Human Virology, Clinical Division, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (Impact Factor: 4.39). 02/2012; 60(3):314-20. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31824e5256
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although used globally, little data exist on the efficacy of nevirapine (NVP) used in combination with tenofovir (TDF)/emtricitabine or lamivudine (XTC), and no large randomized prospective control trials exists comparing this combination with efavirenz (EFV)/TDF/(XTC).
As part of the AIDSRelief program, a retrospective review of patient medical chart information along with a cross-sectional viral load, and adherence measurement was conducted between 2004 and 2009. An on-treatment analysis excluded patients who died, transferred out of care, or were lost to follow-up. A switch of antiretrovirals for any reason was considered a failure in the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients with only clinically relevant reasons for switching such as toxicity, adverse effects, viral failure or clinical/immunological failure, lost to follow-up, and death were considered failures as part of the modified-intent-to-treat analysis. Step-wise multiple regression analysis was used to identify variables that were associated with viral suppression.
A random sample of 3862 patients met criteria and were included in this analysis. In the on-treatment analysis, older age (P < 0.004) and baseline CD4 <100 cells per cubic millimeter (P < 0.021) were the most significant variables impacting viral load. Patients on TDF/XTC/EFV achieved higher rates of viral suppression compared with patients on TDF/XTC/NVP or azidothymidine (AZT)/lamivudine (3TC)/NVP.
Our data show that patients on TDF/XTC/EFV had better outcomes than patients on TDF/XTC/NVP, AZT/3TC/EFV, or AZT/3TC/NVP. High rates of virologic suppression seen in patients on this regimen are consistent with previous studies and indicate the need to increase use of this regimen in HIV programs to promote sustainable viral suppression over time.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is conflicting evidence and practice regarding the use of the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP) in first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART). We systematically reviewed virological outcomes in HIV-1 infected, treatment-naive patients on regimens containing EFV versus NVP from randomised trials and observational cohort studies. Data sources include PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and conference proceedings of the International AIDS Society, Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, between 1996 to May 2013. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic, and subgroup analyses performed to assess the potential influence of study design, duration of follow up, location, and tuberculosis treatment. Sensitivity analyses explored the potential influence of different dosages of NVP and different viral load thresholds. Of 5011 citations retrieved, 38 reports of studies comprising 114 391 patients were included for review. EFV was significantly less likely than NVP to lead to virologic failure in both trials (RR 0.85 [0.73-0.99] I(2) = 0%) and observational studies (RR 0.65 [0.59-0.71] I(2) = 54%). EFV was more likely to achieve virologic success than NVP, though marginally significant, in both randomised controlled trials (RR 1.04 [1.00-1.08] I(2) = 0%) and observational studies (RR 1.06 [1.00-1.12] I(2) = 68%). EFV-based first line ART is significantly less likely to lead to virologic failure compared to NVP-based ART. This finding supports the use of EFV as the preferred NNRTI in first-line treatment regimen for HIV treatment, particularly in resource limited settings.
    PLoS ONE 07/2013; 8(7):e68995. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0068995 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:: Since 2002, the World Health Organization has recommended either nevirapine (NVP) or efavirenz (EFV) as part of first-line antiretroviral therapy. These two drugs are known to have differing toxicity profiles, but the clinical importance of these toxicities overall is not well established. METHODS:: We systematically reviewed adverse events among treatment-naïve HIV-positive adults and children receiving either NVP or EFV as part of first-line antiretroviral therapy. The primary outcome was drug discontinuation as a result of any adverse event; specific toxicities were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated and proportions and odds ratios (OR) pooled using fixed-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS:: We reviewed data on 26446 adult and 3975 chidren from 8 randomized trials and 26 prospective cohorts. Overall, adults on NVP were more than two times more likely to discontinue treatment due to any adverse event compared to patients on EFV (OR 2.2, 95%CI 1.9-2.6). Severe hepatotoxicity (OR 3.3, 95%CI 2.5-4.2), severe skin toxicity (OR 3.9, 95%CI 2.5-5.4), and severe hypersensitivity reactions (OR 2.4, 95%CI 1.9-2.9) were more likely to occur among patients on NVP. Patients receiving EFV were more likely to experience severe CNS-events (OR 3.4, 95%CI 2.1-5.4). Similar associations were seen in children. DISCUSSION:: Compared to NVP, EFV is associated with a lower frequency of severe adverse events, in particular treatment discontinuations. This finding supports a move towards efavirenz-based therapy as the preferred first-line treatment regimen for HIV treatment within a public health approach.
    AIDS (London, England) 01/2013; 27(9). DOI:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835f1db0 · 6.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current WHO guidelines for developing countries recommend efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP) for first-line antiretroviral treatment (ART). This paper compares the effectiveness of EFV and NVP among ART-naive patients initiating treatment at 56 public health facilities in South Africa between January 2004 and December 2007. Participants were assigned to the EFV or NVP cohorts depending on their baseline ART regimen. Mortality, viral load suppression after 6 months and ART regimen change were compared between the cohorts using Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression. At initiation, 19 441 (71.1%) patients started EFV and 7909 (28.9%) started NVP treatment. The median follow-up period was 9.5 months (IQR 4.6-17.7). After adjustment, mortality was similar in the two cohorts, (adjusted HR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.89-1.28). Viral load suppression at 6 months was higher in the EFV cohort overall (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.29, 95% CI 1.05-1.59) and in women aged 16-40 years (AOR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.11-1.63) and women with CD4 counts <25 cells/µL (AOR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.01-3.76). Patients starting on EFV were 47% less likely to change regimen (AOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.48-0.59). These findings suggest the superior effectiveness of EFV for first-line ART compared with NVP and should be considered during development of future ART guidelines for high-burden regions.
    International Health 06/2013; 5(2):132-8. DOI:10.1093/inthealth/iht002 · 1.13 Impact Factor