Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz compared with zidovudine/lamivudine and efavirenz in treatment-naive patients: 144-Week analysis

Internal Medicine Service, Hospital de La Paz, Madrid, Spain.
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (Impact Factor: 4.39). 01/2008; 47(1):74-8. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31815acab8
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT As antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of HIV infection improve, trials providing data on long-term follow-up are increasingly important.
A regimen of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), emtricitabine (FTC), and efavirenz (EFV) demonstrated superior virologic, immunologic and morphologic effects compared with a regimen of fixed-dose zidovudine/lamivudine (ZDV/3TC) and EFV through 96 weeks in a randomized open-label trial. After 96 weeks, patients on TDF + FTC transitioned to fixed-dose combination TDF/FTC.
Through 144 weeks, significantly more patients in the TDF/FTC arm reached and maintained an HIV RNA level <400 copies/mL (71% receiving TDF/FTC and EFV vs. 58% receiving ZDV/3TC and EFV; P = 0.004), with a trend toward greater CD4 cell increase in the TDF/FTC arm (312 vs. 271 cells/mm; P = 0.09). Over 144 weeks of follow-up, more patients in the ZDV/3TC arm discontinued therapy because of adverse events (11% vs. 5%; P = 0.01) and no patients discontinued because of renal events. Patients in the ZDV/3TC arm had significantly less limb fat than patients in the TDF/FTC arm (5.4 vs. 7.9 kg; P < 0.001) at 144 weeks.
Cumulative results from 3 years of follow-up suggest that a regimen of TDF/FTC and EFV demonstrates superior durability of viral load suppression and an improved safety and morphologic profile compared with ZDV/3TC and EFV.

Download full-text


Available from: Joel E. Gallant, Dec 26, 2013
  • Source
    • "Model input TDF/FTC ϩ EFV [15] [16] [17] ZDV/3TC ϩ EFV [15] [16] [17] ABC/3TC ϩ EFV [29]* "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily tenofovir/emtricitabine compared with twice-daily zidovudine/lamivudine and once-daily abacavir/lamivudine in treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection in the United States. A Markov model with four therapy lines and six health states based on CD4(+) cell-count ranges was developed to estimate lifetime costs and health outcomes. Efficacy data (virologic response and CD4(+) cell-count changes) for first-line therapy were from 144-week results of Study 934 comparing tenofovir/emtricitabine with zidovudine/lamivudine and 48-week results of Study CNA30024 comparing abacavir/lamivudine with zidovudine/lamivudine, all in combination with efavirenz. Data from Study CNA30024 for abacavir/lamivudine were adjusted to allow for an indirect comparison with tenofovir/emtricitabine. Subsequent therapy lines were based on likely baskets of antiretroviral therapy recommended by US treatment guidelines. Utility values, mortality rates, and costs (2009 US dollars) were obtained from published sources. Base-case results were tested in sensitivity and variability analyses. Average discounted results showed that individuals using tenofovir/emtricitabine were predicted to remain on first-line therapy for 7.7 years, accrue lifetime costs of $747,327, and experience 15.75 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), compared with 6.0 years, $777,090, and 15.68 QALYs for individuals using abacavir/lamivudine and 5.8 years, $778,287, and 15.44 QALYs for individuals using zidovudine/lamivudine. Tenofovir/emtricitabine was cost-effective compared with the other two first-line regimens in more than 75% of all probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulation runs for every willingness-to-pay threshold between $0 and $250,000 per QALY gained. Results were robust in variability and one-way sensitivity analyses. Tenofovir/emtricitabine was predicted to be more effective and cost-saving compared with abacavir/lamivudine and zidovudine/lamivudine in treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection in the United States.
    Value in Health 07/2011; 14(5):657-64. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.009 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
Show more