Article

Abacavir/lamivudine versus tenofovir DF/emtricitabine as part of combination regimens for initial treatment of HIV: final results.

Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
The Journal of Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 5.85). 10/2011; 204(8):1191-201. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jir505
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5202 compared blinded abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) to tenofovir DF/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) with efavirenz (EFV) or atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected treatment-naive patients, stratified by screening HIV RNA (< or ≥ 10(5) copies/mL). Due to higher virologic failure with ABC/3TC in the high HIV RNA stratum, blinded treatment was stopped in this group, but study follow-up continued for all patients.
Primary endpoints were times to virologic failure, regimen modification, and safety event.
In the low HIV RNA stratum, time to virologic failure was similar for ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC with ATV/r (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76, 2.05) or EFV (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.77, 1.96), with significantly shorter times to regimen modification for ABC/3TC with EFV or ATV/r and to safety events with EFV. Prior to stopping blinded treatment in the high stratum, higher virologic failure rates were seen with ABC/3TC with EFV (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.20, 5.05) or ATV/r (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.19, 4.14).
In the low HIV RNA stratum, times to virologic failure for ABC/3TC or TDF/FTC were not different with EFV or ATV/r. In the high stratum, virologic failure rate was significantly higher for ABC/3TC than for TDF/FTC when given with either EFV or ATV/r.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
170 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Low-level HIV viraemia (LLV; 50-999 copies/mL) occurs frequently in patients receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART), but there are little or no data available demonstrating that HIV drug resistance testing at viral loads (pVL) <1000 provides potentially clinically useful information. Here, we assess the ability to perform resistance testing by genotyping at LLV and whether it is predictive of future virologic outcomes in patients beginning ART. Methods. Resistance testing by genotyping at LLV was attempted on 4915 plasma samples from 2492 patients. A subset of previously ART-naïve patients was analyzed who achieved undetectable pVL and subsequently rebounded with LLV (N=212). A genotypic sensitivity score (GSS) was calculated based on therapy and resistance testing results by genotyping, and stratified according to number of active drugs. Results. 88% of LLV resistance assays produced useable sequences, with higher success at higher pVL. Overall, 16/212 (8%) patients had pre-therapy resistance. 38/196 (19%) patients without pre-therapy resistance evolved resistance to 1 or more drug classes - primarily the nRTIs (14%) and/or NNRTIs (9%). Patients with resistance at LLV (GSS<3) had a 2.1-fold higher risk of virologic failure (95%CI 1.2-3.7) than those without resistance (p=0.007). Progressively lower GSS scores at LLV were associated with a higher increase in pVL over time (p<0.001). Acquisition of additional resistance mutations to a new class of antiretrovirals during LLV was not found in a subset of patients. Conclusions. Routine HIV genotyping of low-level viraemia samples can be performed with a reasonably high success rate and the results appear predictive of future virologic outcomes.
    Clinical Infectious Diseases 01/2014; · 9.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. To evaluate treatment responses to atazanavir plus ritonavir or efavirenz in initial antiretroviral regimens among women and men, and determine if treatment outcomes differ by sex. Methods. Randomized trial of open label atazanavir plus ritonavir or efavirenz combined with abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine in 1857 HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive persons enrolled between September 2005 and November 2007 at 59 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico.Associations of sex with 3 primary study endpoints of time-to virologic failure, safety and tolerability events were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. Model-based population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using non-linear mixed effects modeling (NONMEM version VII). Results. Of 1857 participants 322 were women. Women assigned to atazanavir/ritonavir had higher risk virologic failure with either nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone than women assigned to efavirenz, or men assigned to atazanavir/ritonavir. The effects of ATV/r and EFV upon safety and tolerability risk did not differ significantly by sex. With ABC/3TC, women had a significant 32% higher safety risk compared to men; with TDF/FTC, the safety risk was 20% larger for women compared to men, but not statistically significant. Women had slower atazanavir clearance and higher pre-dose levels of atazanavir compared to men. Self-reported adherence did not differ significantly by sex. Conclusions. This is the first randomized clinical trial to identify a significantly earlier time to virologic failure in women randomized to atazanavir/ritonavir compared to women randomized to efavirenz. This finding has important clinical implications given that boosted protease inhibitors are often favored over efavirenz in women of childbearing potential.
    Clinical Infectious Diseases 11/2013; · 9.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: These guidelines are part of the French Experts' recommendations for the management of people living with HIV/AIDS, which were made public and submitted to the French health authorities in September 2013. The objective was to provide updated recommendations for antiretroviral treatment (ART) of HIV-positive adults. Guidelines included the following topics: when to start, what to start, specific situations for the choice of the first session of antiretroviral therapy, optimization of antiretroviral therapy after virologic suppression, and management of virologic failure. Methods: Ten members of the French HIV 2013 expert group were responsible for guidelines on ART. They systematically reviewed the most recent literature. The chairman of the subgroup was responsible for drafting the guidelines, which were subsequently discussed within, and finalized by the whole expert group to obtain a consensus. Recommendations were graded for strength and level of evidence using predefined criteria. Economic considerations were part of the decision-making process for selecting preferred first-line options. Potential conflicts of interest were actively managed throughout the whole process. Results: ART should be initiated in any HIV-positive person, whatever his/her CD4 T-cell count, even when >500/mm3. The level of evidence of the individual benefit of ART in terms of mortality or progression to AIDS increases with decreasing CD4 cell count. Preferred initial regimens include two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine) plus a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz or rilpivirine), or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (atazanavir or darunavir). Raltegravir, lopinavir/r, and nevirapine are recommended as alternative third agents, with specific indications and restrictions. Specific situations such as HIV infection in women, primary HIV infection, severe immune suppression with or without identified opportunistic infection, and person who injects drugs are addressed. Options for optimization of ART once virologic suppression is achieved are discussed. Evaluation and management of virologic failure are described, the aim of any intervention in such situation being to reduce plasma viral load to <50 copies/ml. Conclusion: These guidelines recommend that any HIV-positive individual should be treated with ART. This recommendation was issued both for the patient's own sake and for promoting treatment as prevention.
    Journal of the International AIDS Society 01/2014; 17(1):19034. · 3.94 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
9 Downloads
Available from
May 28, 2014