Comparison of efavirenz and nevirapine in HIV-infected patients (NEEF Cohort)
ABSTRACT The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP) taken in combination with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) have both shown to be just as highly effective as protease inhibitors (PIs) in reducing viral load in patients infected with HIV. Our study compares the performance of these two NNRTIs with each other. This was a non-randomized, prospective, two-arm, multi-centre trial. We evaluated all patients with an EFV- or NVP-containing antiretroviral regimen. The primary endpoint was the difference in success rates defined as a viral load of </=50 copies/mL at week 48. chi(2)-tests were used for naïve and pretreated patients using intention-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment analysis. As secondary endpoints, a viral load of </=500 copies/mL and CD4 count at week 48 for naïve patients were evaluated. A Cox regression was used to adjust for prespecified covariates. We included 662 patients (NVP 337, EFV 325). The difference in success rates in the ITT analysis was 4.5% ( -11.5%, 19.0%), P=0.578. Pretreated patients with a triple therapy show a difference of 10.1 (-0.3, 20.6), P=0.056. Non-significant results appeared for all secondary analyses. In this trial, no difference between EFV and NVP in combination with NRTI backbone therapy can be shown, regarding viral load. Further randomized studies are necessary to evaluate possible differences.
SourceAvailable from: Elizabeth D Lowenthal[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Worldwide, the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) efavirenz and nevirapine are commonly used in first-line antiretroviral regimens in both adults and children with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Data on the comparative effectiveness of these medications in children are limited. To investigate whether virological failure is more likely among children who initiated 1 or the other NNRTI-based HIV treatment. Retrospective cohort study of children (aged 3-16 years) who initiated efavirenz-based (n = 421) or nevirapine-based (n = 383) treatment between April 2002 and January 2011 at a large pediatric HIV care setting in Botswana. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time from initiation of therapy to virological failure. Virological failure was defined as lack of plasma HIV RNA suppression to less than 400 copies/mL by 6 months or confirmed HIV RNA of 400 copies/mL or greater after suppression. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis compared time to virological failure by regimen. Multivariable Cox regression controlled for age, sex, baseline immunologic category, baseline clinical category, baseline viral load, nutritional status, NRTIs used, receipt of single-dose nevirapine, and treatment for tuberculosis. With a median follow-up time of 69 months (range, 6-112 months; interquartile range, 23-87 months), 57 children (13.5%; 95% CI, 10.4%-17.2%) initiating treatment with efavirenz and 101 children (26.4%; 95% CI, 22.0%-31.1%) initiating treatment with nevirapine had virological failure. There were 11 children (2.6%; 95% CI, 1.3%-4.6%) receiving efavirenz and 20 children (5.2%; 95% CI, 3.2%-7.9%) receiving nevirapine who never achieved virological suppression. The Cox proportional hazard ratio for the combined virological failure end point was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.4-2.7; log rank P < .001, favoring efavirenz). None of the measured covariates affected the estimated hazard ratio in the multivariable analyses. Among children aged 3 to 16 years infected with HIV and treated at a clinic in Botswana, the use of efavirenz compared with nevirapine as initial antiretroviral treatment was associated with less virological failure. These findings may warrant additional research evaluating the use of efavirenz and nevirapine for pediatric patients.JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 05/2013; 309(17):1803-9. DOI:10.1001/jama.2013.3710 · 30.39 Impact Factor
[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
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:: Since 2002, the World Health Organization has recommended either nevirapine (NVP) or efavirenz (EFV) as part of first-line antiretroviral therapy. These two drugs are known to have differing toxicity profiles, but the clinical importance of these toxicities overall is not well established. METHODS:: We systematically reviewed adverse events among treatment-naïve HIV-positive adults and children receiving either NVP or EFV as part of first-line antiretroviral therapy. The primary outcome was drug discontinuation as a result of any adverse event; specific toxicities were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated and proportions and odds ratios (OR) pooled using fixed-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS:: We reviewed data on 26446 adult and 3975 chidren from 8 randomized trials and 26 prospective cohorts. Overall, adults on NVP were more than two times more likely to discontinue treatment due to any adverse event compared to patients on EFV (OR 2.2, 95%CI 1.9-2.6). Severe hepatotoxicity (OR 3.3, 95%CI 2.5-4.2), severe skin toxicity (OR 3.9, 95%CI 2.5-5.4), and severe hypersensitivity reactions (OR 2.4, 95%CI 1.9-2.9) were more likely to occur among patients on NVP. Patients receiving EFV were more likely to experience severe CNS-events (OR 3.4, 95%CI 2.1-5.4). Similar associations were seen in children. DISCUSSION:: Compared to NVP, EFV is associated with a lower frequency of severe adverse events, in particular treatment discontinuations. This finding supports a move towards efavirenz-based therapy as the preferred first-line treatment regimen for HIV treatment within a public health approach.AIDS (London, England) 01/2013; 27(9). DOI:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835f1db0 · 6.56 Impact Factor