The nucleoside backbone affects durability of efavirenz- or nevirapine-based highly active antiretroviral therapy in antiretroviral-naive individuals.

Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (Impact Factor: 4.39). 04/2009; 51(2):140-6. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181a56e81
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We wished to determine the efficacy of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients commencing highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and to evaluate the effect of calendar year, nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone, sex, and ethnicity on treatment outcome.
Antiretroviral-naive individuals commencing efavirenz or nevirapine with dual-nucleoside analogue backbones were identified from a prospective database. Virological success was defined as HIV viral load <500 copies per milliliter. Treatment failure was defined as a switch or discontinuation of NNRTI or documented virological failure (2 measurements with viral load >500 copies/mL).
From a cohort of 994 individuals, 73% commenced efavirenz- and 27% nevirapine-containing regimens. We found no differences between the 2 treatment groups for the time to virological success (proportion with virological success: efavirenz 71%, nevirapine 72%, P = 0.77) or treatment failure (proportion failing treatment: efavirenz 23%, nevirapine 26%, P = 0.58). There was a significant difference in the calendar year for commencing HAART for the time to virological success and treatment failure (P < 0.001). In the multivariable model, the likelihood of virological success for stavudine/lamivudine was 52% [relative hazard (RH) 1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.97, P = 0.002]. The nonthymidine analogue backbones as a group seemed to be least likely associated with virological success (RH 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.80, P < 0.001). This was however largely driven by tenofovir/didanosine being significantly associated with treatment failure (RH 6.48, 95% CI 3.81 to 11.0, P < 0.001). Sex and ethnicity were not associated with treatment outcome.
We found no significant differences between nevirapine and efavirenz for the time to virological success or treatment failure. Calendar year of commencing HAART and NRTI backbones were significant predictors of virological success and treatment failure, explaining differences in data to the 2NN study. The weaker the NNRTI (or the weaker the protease inhibitor) the more important the NRTI backbone becomes.

Download full-text


Available from: Sundhiya Mandalia, Mar 25, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous research has raised concerns that patients given nevirapine (NVP)-based regimens experience more virologic failure than patients given efavirenz (EFV)-based regimens. We investigated this hypothesis in a cohort of HIV-positive patients at a large HIV treatment clinic in South Africa.
    Journal of the International AIDS Society 10/2014; 17(1):19065. DOI:10.7448/IAS.17.1.19065 · 4.21 Impact Factor
  • 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: Studies were conducted to determine if there is a mechanistic basis for reports of suboptimal virologic responses and concerns regarding the safety of regimens containing the combination of tenofovir (TFV) disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and didanosine (ddI) by assessing the pharmacokinetic consequences of coadministration of these drugs on intracellular nucleotides. This was a prospective and longitudinal study in HIV-1-infected patients of adding either TDF or ddI to a stable antiretroviral regimen containing the other drug. Intracellular concentrations of the nucleotide analogs TFV diphosphate (TFV-DP) and ddATP and the endogenous purine nucleotides dATP and 2'-dGTP in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were measured. A total of 16 patients were enrolled into the two study arms and a study extension. Intracellular TFV-DP concentrations (median, 120 fmol/10(6) cells) and ddATP concentrations (range, 1.50 to 7.54 fmol/10(6) cells in two patients) were unaffected following addition of ddI or TDF to a stable regimen containing the other drug. While coadministration of ddI and TDF for 4 weeks did not appear to impact dATP or dGTP concentrations, cross-sectional analysis suggested that extended therapy with ddI-containing regimens, irrespective of TDF coadministration, may decrease dATP and ddATP concentrations. Addition of TDF or ddI to a stable regimen including the other drug, in the context of ddI dose reduction, did not adversely affect the concentration of dATP, dGTP, TFV-DP, or ddATP. The association between longer-term ddI therapy and reduced intracellular nucleotide concentrations and this observation's implication for the efficacy and toxicity of ddI-containing regimens deserve further study.
    Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 03/2011; 55(4):1549-55. DOI:10.1128/AAC.00910-10 · 4.45 Impact Factor