Risk of early virological failure of once-daily tenofovir-emtricitabine plus twice-daily nevirapine in antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-infected patients.
Clinical Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 9.42). 05/2008; 46(7):1127-9. DOI: 10.1086/529394
- Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 03/2009; 63(5):1080-1081. · 5.44 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Nevirapine belongs to the group of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and is commonly administered in first-line treatment of HIV infection. Systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to compare effectiveness of nevirapine-based regimens with other antiretroviral schedules used as an initial treatment of HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive subjects. Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Trip Database) were searched up to 28 December 2012 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published as a full text and regarding nevirapine-based regimens used as a initial treatment for HIV infection. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan(®) V 5.2 software. Twelve RCTs were included in the systematic review and all of them were suitable for meta-analysis. Results of the meta-analysis have shown that nevirapine, efavirenz, and ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor, added to the background regimens, were equally effective in terms of reaching undetectable plasma HIV RNA level as well as risk of disease progression or death. Compared with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based regimens, nevirapine-based regimens statistically significantly increased the risk of discontinuation of assigned treatment (RR=3.10; 95% CI: 1.14-8.41; p<0.05). Despite limited RCTs data available for particular comparisons, our results suggest that nevirapine-based regimens may be considered for first-line treatment of HIV-infected adults, due to their comparable efficacy to the other currently recommended initial antiretroviral therapies.PLoS ONE 01/2013; 8(10):e76587. · 3.53 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Recent WHO guidelines for resource-limited settings recommend tenofovir in first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) yet there are suggestions that patients receiving nevirapine with tenofovir have worse outcomes than those receiving efavirenz. We sought to compare outcomes among those taking nevirapine vs. efavirenz with tenofovir and lamivudine. We analyzed data on ART naïve, non-pregnant patients, ≥18 years old without tuberculosis co-infection, initiating tenofovir with lamivudine and either nevirapine or efavirenz between April 1, 2010 and July 31, 2011 (when South Africa's public-sector use of tenofovir began) at Themba Lethu Clinic in South Africa. We measured virologic suppression (viral load <400 copies/ml), virologic failure (2 consecutive viral loads >1000 copies/ml), and attrition (death/loss to follow-up) all at 12 months after ART initiation. Modified Poisson regression with robust error estimation was used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for predictors of each outcome. 2,254 patients were prescribed efavirenz, 131 nevirapine. Patients were followed a median (range) of 12.0 (0.1-12.0) person-months. 62.2% were female and median (IQR) age was 37.7 years (31.5-44.1). Patients prescribed efavirenz had similar initiating CD4 counts (median 132 for both regimens) but were somewhat more likely to be WHO Stage III or IV (39.6% vs. 33.6%) than those prescribed nevirapine. No difference in attrition was found (aRR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.49-1.41). Among patients with ≥1 viral load within 1 year on ART, those prescribed nevirapine were as likely to reach virologic suppression (aRR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.88-1.07) but more likely to experience virologic failure (aRR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.02-3.31) than those prescribed efavirenz. Our results support the notion that, among patients prescribed tenofovir and lamivudine, virologic failure is more common among those taking nevirapine than among those taking efavirenz. Longer-term follow up and larger studies will be needed to confirm this finding.PLoS ONE 08/2013; 8(8):e71719. · 3.53 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.