Article

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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
82 Views
  • 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: Background: Efavirenz (EFV) causes neuropsychiatric side-effects and an unfavorable blood lipid profile. We investigated the effect of replacing EFV with raltegravir (RAL) on patient preference, daytime sleepiness, sleep quality, anxiety, and lipid levels. Method: Switch-ER was a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Patients who tolerated EFV, with less than 50 copies/ml HIV-RNA, were randomized into two groups: the RAL-first group started with RAL (400 mg twice daily) and EFV placebo, and the EFV-first group with EFV (600 mg once daily) and RAL placebo. After 2 weeks, both groups switched to the alternate regimen. The primary endpoint was patient preference for the first or the second regimen, assessed after 4 weeks. Results: Fifty seven participants were enrolled with a median CD4 cell count 600/μl, and duration of previous EFV therapy 3.4 years. Fifty three participants completed the study. When asked about treatment preference after 4 weeks, 22 preferred RAL and 12 preferred EFV, whereas 19 did not express a preference. A significant difference in anxiety and stress scores favoring RAL (P = 0.04 and 0.03, respectively) was observed. Median plasma cholesterol levels decreased by 0.4 mmol/l (16 mg/dl, P < 0.001), triglycerides by 0.2 mmol/l (18 mg/dl, P = 0.036), and low-density lipoprotein by 0.2 mmol/l (8 mg/dl, P = 0.004) after replacing EFV with RAL. After study completion, 51% of patients switched to RAL. Conclusion: Half of patients previously on a stable EFV preferred to switch to RAL, after double-blind exposure to RAL for 2 weeks. Substitution of EFV by RAL significantly impacted on lipid levels, stress, and anxiety scores.
    AIDS 07/2011; 25(12):1481–1487. DOI:10.1097/QAD.0b013e328348dab0 · 6.56 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

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
0 Downloads
Available from
Mar 25, 2015