Choice of Initial Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in Individuals With HIV Infection Determinants and Outcomes
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Current guidelines give recommendations for preferred combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). We investigated factors influencing the choice of initial cART in clinical practice and its outcome. METHODS We analyzed treatment-naive adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection participating in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and starting cART from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009. The primary end point was the choice of the initial antiretroviral regimen. Secondary end points were virologic suppression, the increase in CD4 cell counts from baseline, and treatment modification within 12 months after starting treatment. RESULTS A total of 1957 patients were analyzed. Tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC)-efavirenz was the most frequently prescribed cART (29.9%), followed by TDF-FTC-lopinavir/r (16.9%), TDF-FTC-atazanavir/r (12.9%), zidovudine-lamivudine (ZDV-3TC)-lopinavir/r (12.8%), and abacavir/lamivudine (ABC-3TC)-efavirenz (5.7%). Differences in prescription were noted among different Swiss HIV Cohort Study sites (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, compared with TDF-FTC-efavirenz, starting TDF-FTC-lopinavir/r was associated with prior AIDS (relative risk ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.78-4.35), HIV-RNA greater than 100 000 copies/mL (1.53; 1.07-2.18), and CD4 greater than 350 cells/μL (1.67; 1.04-2.70); TDF-FTC-atazanavir/r with a depressive disorder (1.77; 1.04-3.01), HIV-RNA greater than 100 000 copies/mL (1.54; 1.05-2.25), and an opiate substitution program (2.76; 1.09-7.00); and ZDV-3TC-lopinavir/r with female sex (3.89; 2.39-6.31) and CD4 cell counts greater than 350 cells/μL (4.50; 2.58-7.86). At 12 months, 1715 patients (87.6%) achieved viral load less than 50 copies/mL and CD4 cell counts increased by a median (interquartile range) of 173 (89-269) cells/μL. Virologic suppression was more likely with TDF-FTC-efavirenz, and CD4 increase was higher with ZDV-3TC-lopinavir/r. No differences in outcome were observed among Swiss HIV Cohort Study sites. CONCLUSIONS Large differences in prescription but not in outcome were observed among study sites. A trend toward individualized cART was noted suggesting that initial cART is significantly influenced by physician's preference and patient characteristics. Our study highlights the need for evidence-based data for determining the best initial regimen for different HIV-infected persons.
- Archives of internal medicine 08/2012; DOI:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3644 · 13.25 Impact Factor
- [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: Objectives We compared reasons for the choice of regimen, time to and reasons for third drug modification, virological response and change in CD4 T-cell counts in patients started on atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r)- vs. efavirenz (EFV)-based first-line regimens.Methods We included patients from the Cohort of the Spanish HIV Research Network (CoRIS), a multicentre cohort of HIV-positive treatment-naïve subjects, in the study. We used logistic regression to assess factors associated with choosing ATV/r vs. EFV, proportional hazards models on the subdistribution hazard to estimate subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) for third drug modification, logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for virological response and linear regression to assess mean differences in CD4 T-cell count increase from baseline.ResultsOf 2167 patients, 10.7% started on ATV/r. ATV/r was more likely than EFV to be prescribed in injecting drug users [adjusted OR 1.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03–3.33], in 2009–2010 (adjusted OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.08–2.47) and combined with abacavir plus lamivudine (adjusted OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.98–2.43). Multivariate analyses showed no differences, comparing ATV/r vs. EFV, in the risk of third drug modification (sHR 1.04; 95% CI 0.74–1.46) or in virological response (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.46–1.41); differences in mean CD4 T-cell count increase from baseline were at the limit of statistical significance (mean difference 29.8 cells/μL; 95% CI −4.1 to 63.6 cells/μL). In patients changing from EFV, 48% of changes were attributable to toxicity/adverse events, 16% to treatment failure/resistance, 3% to simplification, and 8 and 12%, respectively, to patients' and physicians' decisions; these percentages were 24, 6, 12, 14 and 24%, respectively, in those changing from ATV/r.ConclusionsATV/r- and EFV-based regimens meet the requirements of both efficacy and safety for initial combination antiretroviral regimen, which relate to better durability.HIV Medicine 04/2014; 15(9). DOI:10.1111/hiv.12144 · 3.45 Impact Factor