The Nucleoside Backbone Affects Durability of Efavirenz- or Nevirapine-Based Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy in Antiretroviral-Naive Individuals

Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (Impact Factor: 4.56). 04/2009; 51(2):140-6. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181a56e81
Source: PubMed


We wished to determine the efficacy of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients commencing highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and to evaluate the effect of calendar year, nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone, sex, and ethnicity on treatment outcome.
Antiretroviral-naive individuals commencing efavirenz or nevirapine with dual-nucleoside analogue backbones were identified from a prospective database. Virological success was defined as HIV viral load <500 copies per milliliter. Treatment failure was defined as a switch or discontinuation of NNRTI or documented virological failure (2 measurements with viral load >500 copies/mL).
From a cohort of 994 individuals, 73% commenced efavirenz- and 27% nevirapine-containing regimens. We found no differences between the 2 treatment groups for the time to virological success (proportion with virological success: efavirenz 71%, nevirapine 72%, P = 0.77) or treatment failure (proportion failing treatment: efavirenz 23%, nevirapine 26%, P = 0.58). There was a significant difference in the calendar year for commencing HAART for the time to virological success and treatment failure (P < 0.001). In the multivariable model, the likelihood of virological success for stavudine/lamivudine was 52% [relative hazard (RH) 1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.97, P = 0.002]. The nonthymidine analogue backbones as a group seemed to be least likely associated with virological success (RH 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.80, P < 0.001). This was however largely driven by tenofovir/didanosine being significantly associated with treatment failure (RH 6.48, 95% CI 3.81 to 11.0, P < 0.001). Sex and ethnicity were not associated with treatment outcome.
We found no significant differences between nevirapine and efavirenz for the time to virological success or treatment failure. Calendar year of commencing HAART and NRTI backbones were significant predictors of virological success and treatment failure, explaining differences in data to the 2NN study. The weaker the NNRTI (or the weaker the protease inhibitor) the more important the NRTI backbone becomes.

Download full-text


Available from: Sundhiya Mandalia, Mar 25, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has reduced the morbidity and mortality due to HIV. The World Health Organisation (WHO) antiretroviral treatment (ART) guidelines focus on three classes of antiretroviral drugs, namely: nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) and protease inhibitors (PI). Two of the most common medications given in first-line treatment are the NNRTIs, efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP). It is unclear which NNRTI is more efficacious for initial therapy. To determine which NNRTI, EFV or NVP, is more efficacious when given in combination with two NRTIs as part of initial ART for HIV infection in adults and children. We used a comprehensive and exhaustive strategy in an attempt to identify all relevant studies, regardless of language or publication status, in electronic databases and conference proceedings from 1996 to 2009. All randomised controlled trials comparing EFV to NVP in HIV-infected individuals without prior exposure to ART, irrespective of the dosage or NRTI backbone.The primary outcome of interest was virologic response to ART. Other primary outcomes included mortality, clinical progression, severe adverse events, and discontinuation of therapy for any reason. Secondary outcomes were immunologic response to ART, treatment failure, development of ART drug resistance, and prevention of sexual transmission of HIV. Two authors assessed each reference for inclusion and exclusion criteria established a priori. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis and reported as per dosage of NVP. We identified seven randomised controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria.The trials were pooled as per dosage of NVP. None of these trials included children.The seven trials enrolled 1,688 participants and found no critical differences between EFV and NVP, except for different toxicity profiles. EFV is more likely to cause central nervous system side-effects, while NVP is more likely to result in raised transaminases and neutropoenia. There was a higher mortality rate in the NVP 400mg once daily arm.The quality of literature to support these conclusions is moderate to high. Drug resistance was slightly less common with EFV than NVP, but the quality of this literature is low since only one of the seven studies reported on this outcome. No studies reported on sexual transmission of HIV. The length of follow-up time, study settings, and NRTI backbone varied greatly. Both drugs have equivalent efficacies in initial treatment of HIV infection when combined with two NRTIs, but different side effects.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2010 · Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate a potential pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic interaction between abacavir (ABC) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). This randomized trial compared 7 days of ABC or TDF monotherapy, separated by a 35-day washout, with 7 days of ABC + TDF dual-therapy in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients. During each 7-day course, the slope of the phase I viral decay was estimated and steady-state intracellular concentrations of carbovir triphosphate (CBV-TP), deoxyguanosine triphosphate (dGTP), tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) and deoxyadenosine triphosphate (dATP) were determined. Twenty-one participants were randomized to initial monotherapy with ABC (n = 11) or TDF (n = 10). The addition of TDF did not increase the slope of viral decay compared to ABC alone (-0.15 log10 per day vs. -0.16 log10 per day, respectively). No decrease in CBV-TP or TFV-DP between monotherapy and dual-therapy was observed. However, intracellular dATP concentrations increased between monotherapy and dual-therapy [median dATP (fmol/10 cells) 3293 vs. 4638; P = 0.08], although this difference was significant only among patients randomized to TDF [median dATP (fmol/10 cells) 3238 vs. 4534; P = 0.047]. A lower TFV-DP-to-dATP ratio was associated with reduced viral decay during dual-therapy (rho = -0.529; P = 0.045). In this study, the viral decay during ABC and TDF dual-therapy was similar to that during ABC therapy alone, suggesting a nonadditive antiviral effect. This negative pharmacodynamic interaction was not explained by changes in CBV-TP or TFV-DP concentrations. Rather, modest increases in endogenous dATP pools were associated with reduced antiviral potency of TDF during co-administration with ABC.
    No preview · Article · Mar 2010 · AIDS (London, England)

  • No preview · Chapter · Sep 2010
Show more