[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Nevirapine (NVP) is widely used in antiretroviral treatment (ART) of HIV-1 globally. The primary objective of the AA5208/OCTANE trial was to compare the efficacy of NVP-based versus lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based initial ART.
In seven African countries (Botswana, Kenya, Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), 500 antiretroviral-naïve HIV-infected women with CD4<200 cells/mm(3) were enrolled into a two-arm randomized trial to initiate open-label ART with tenofovir (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC) once/day plus either NVP (n = 249) or LPV/r (n = 251) twice/day, and followed for ≥48 weeks. The primary endpoint was time from randomization to death or confirmed virologic failure ([VF]) (plasma HIV RNA<1 log(10) below baseline 12 weeks after treatment initiation, or ≥400 copies/ml at or after 24 weeks), with comparison between treatments based on hazard ratios (HRs) in intention-to-treat analysis. Equivalence of randomized treatments was defined as finding the 95% CI for HR for virological failure or death in the range 0.5 to 2.0. Baseline characteristics were (median): age = 34 years, CD4 = 121 cells/mm(3), HIV RNA = 5.2 log(10)copies/ml. Median follow-up = 118 weeks; 29 (6%) women were lost to follow-up. 42 women (37 VFs, five deaths; 17%) in the NVP and 50 (43 VFs, seven deaths; 20%) in the LPV/r arm reached the primary endpoint (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56-1.29). During initial assigned treatment, 14% and 16% of women receiving NVP and LPV/r experienced grade 3/4 signs/symptoms and 26% and 22% experienced grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities. However, 35 (14%) women discontinued NVP because of adverse events, most in the first 8 weeks, versus none for LPV/r (p<0.001). VF, death, or permanent treatment discontinuation occurred in 80 (32%) of NVP and 54 (22%) of LPV/r arms (HR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.4), with the difference primarily due to more treatment discontinuation in the NVP arm. 13 (45%) of 29 women tested in the NVP versus six (15%) of 40 in the LPV/r arm had any drug resistance mutation at time of VF.
Initial ART with NVP+TDF/FTC demonstrated equivalent virologic efficacy but higher rates of treatment discontinuation and new drug resistance compared with LPV/r+TDF/FTC in antiretroviral-naïve women with CD4<200 cells/mm(3).
PLoS Medicine 06/2012; 9(6):e1001236. · 15.25 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In the OCTANE/A5208 study of initial antiretroviral therapy (ART) in women exposed to single-dose nevirapine (sdNVP) ≥ 6 mo earlier, the primary endpoint (virological failure or death) was significantly more frequent in the NVP-containing treatment arm than in the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing treatment arm. Detection of NVP resistance in plasma virus at study entry by standard population genotype was strongly associated with the primary endpoint in the NVP arm, but two-thirds of endpoints occurred in women without NVP resistance. We hypothesized that low-frequency NVP-resistant mutants, missed by population genotype, explained excess failure in the NVP treatment arm. Plasma samples from 232 participants were analyzed by allele-specific PCR at study entry to quantify NVP-resistant mutants down to 0.1% for 103N and 190A and to 0.3% for 181C. Of 201 women without NVP resistance by population genotype, 70 (35%) had NVP-resistant mutants detected by allele-specific PCR. Among these 70 women, primary endpoints occurred in 12 (32%) of 38 women in the NVP arm vs. 3 (9%) of 32 in the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arm (hazard ratio = 3.84). The occurrence of a primary endpoint in the NVP arm was significantly associated with the presence of K103N or Y181C NVP-resistant mutations at frequencies >1%. The risk for a study endpoint associated with NVP-resistant mutant levels did not decrease with time. Therefore, among women with prior exposure to sdNVP, low-frequency NVP-resistant mutants were associated with increased risk for failure of NVP-containing ART. The implications for choosing initial ART for sdNVP-exposed women are discussed.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 05/2011; 108(22):9202-7. · 9.81 Impact Factor