Dataset Information

Outcomes for efavirenz versus nevirapine-containing regimens for treatment of HIV-1 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: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). METHODS: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. RESULTS: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%). CONCLUSION: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.

SUBMITTER: Pillay P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3718822 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcomes for efavirenz versus nevirapine-containing regimens for treatment of HIV-1 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pillay Prinitha P Ford Nathan N Shubber Zara Z Ferrand Rashida A RA

PloS one 20130722 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>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).<h4>Methods</h4>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 Co ...[more]

PMID: 23894391

Similar Datasets

Project description:According to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, which have also been adopted by the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO), India, Efavirenz-based Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) is better in Human-Immunodeficiency-Virus (HIV)-infected patients who are also being treated with Rifampicin-based Anti-Tuberculous Therapy (ATT). However, Efavirenz is much more expensive. We hypothesize that Nevirapine is a cheaper alternative that possesses equal efficacy as Efavirenz in HIV-Tuberculosis (TB) co-infected patients.A parallel open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and National AIDS Research Institute (NARI), Pune. Those who were ART-naïve and co-infected with TB were randomized to receive either Nevirapine (Group 1)- or Efavirenz (Group 2)-based ART along with Rifampicin-based ATT. ATT was begun first in ART-naïve patients according to the NACO guidelines, with a median of 27 days between ATT and ART in both groups. The primary endpoint was a composite unfavourable outcome (death and/or ART failure) at 96 weeks, and the secondary outcome was successful TB treatment at 48 weeks.A total of 284 patients (mean age 36.7?±?8.1 years) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either Nevirapine (n?=?144)- or Efavirenz (n?=?140)-based ART after a median ATT-ART gap of 27 days. The median CD4 count was 105 cells/?l, with a median viral load of 820,200 copies/?l and no significant difference between the groups. Composite unfavourable outcomes were reported in 49 patients in the Nevirapine group and 51 patients in the Efavirenz group (35.3% vs. 36.9%; hazard ratio, 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63,1.43, adjusted). There was no difference in successful TB treatment outcome between the groups (71.5% vs. 65.6%, 95% CI -3.8,17.9, adjusted). The results were similar, showing no difference between the groups in the two centres of the study after adjusting for disease stage.Composite unfavourable outcome in HIV-TB co-infected patients who were ART-naïve showed no statistically significant difference in the Nevirapine or Efavirenz groups.. Therefore, Nevirapine-based ART is a reasonable alternative to Efavirenz in resource-limited settings. However, multi-centric studies with larger sample sizes are required to confirm these findings.NCT01805258 (Retrospectively registered on March 6, 2013) Date of registration: March 2013.

Project description:ImportanceWorldwide, 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.ObjectiveTo investigate whether virological failure is more likely among children who initiated 1 or the other NNRTI-based HIV treatment.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsWith 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.Conclusions and relevanceAmong 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.

Project description:Efavirenz, a non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) is one of the most commonly prescribed antiretroviral drugs. The present article provides a systematic overview and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing efavirenz and other active drugs currently recommended for treatment of HIV-infected, antiretroviral-naive patients. Electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Trip Database) were searched up till 23 December 2013 for randomized controlled clinical trials published as a peer-reviewed papers, and concerning efavirenz-based regimens used as initial treatment for HIV infection. Thirty-four studies were included in the systematic review, while twenty-six trials were suitable for the meta-analysis. Efavirenz was compared with drugs from four different classes: NNRTIs other than efavirenz (nevirapine or rilpivirine), integrase strand transfer inhibitors (InSTIs), ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (bPI) and chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 5 (CCR5) antagonists (maraviroc), all of them were added to the background regimen. Results of the current meta-analysis showed that efavirenz-based regimens were equally effective as other recommended regimens based on NNRTI, ritonavir-boosted PI or CCR5 antagonist in terms of efficacy outcomes (disease progression and/or death, plasma viral HIV RNA <50 copies/ml) while statistically significant more patients treated with InSTI achieved plasma viral load <50 copies/ml at week 48. In comparison with both InSTI-based and CCR5-based therapy, efavirenz-based treatment was associated with a higher risk of therapy discontinuation due to adverse events. However, comparisons of efevirenz-based treatment with InSTI-based and CCR5-based therapy were based on a limited number of trials, therefore, conclusions from these two comparisons must be confirmed in further reliable randomized controlled studies. Results of our meta-analysis support the present clinical guidelines for antiretroviral-naive, HIV-infected patients, in which efavirenz is one of the most preferred regimens in the analyzed population. Beneficial safety profile of InSTI-based and CCR5-based therapy over efavirenz-based treatment needs further studies.

Project description:Background:Evidence regarding potential adverse neuropsychiatric effects of efavirenz is conflicting, and data from sub-Saharan Africa, where 70% of persons living with HIV (PLHIV) reside and efavirenz is used as first-line therapy, are limited. Objective:To estimate associations between efavirenz use and depression and suicidal ideation among PLHIV in Uganda. Design:Prospective observational cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01596322). Setting:Mbarara, Uganda. Participants:Adult PLHIV enrolled at the start of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and observed every 3 to 4 months from 2005 to 2015. Measurements:The exposure of interest was time-varying efavirenz use, defined as use during the 7 days and in 60 or more of the 90 days before a study visit, compared with nevirapine use. Self-reported outcomes were depression, defined as a mean score greater than 1.75 on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist depression subscale, and suicidal ideation. Multivariable-adjusted generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards regression, and marginal structural models were fit to estimate the association between efavirenz use and the risk for depression and suicidal ideation. Results:694 participants (median age, 33 years; median pretreatment CD4+ count, 1.8 × 109 cells/L) contributed 1200 person-years of observation (460 person-years receiving efavirenz). No baseline differences in depression or suicidal ideation were found between patients ever exposed to efavirenz and those never exposed to efavirenz and receiving nevirapine (P > 0.80 for both). Of 305 participants ever-exposed to efavirenz, 61 (20.0%) and 19 (6.2%) had depression and suicidal ideation, respectively, on at least 1 follow-up visit, compared with 125 (32.1%) and 47 (12.1%) of the 389 who received nevirapine. In adjusted GEE models, efavirenz use was associated with decreased odds of depression compared with nevirapine use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.96]) and was not significantly associated with suicidal ideation (adjusted odds ratio, 0.61 [CI, 0.30 to 1.25]). Time-to-event and marginal structural models yielded similar estimates. Limitation:Nonrandom assignment to treatment and substantial differences between the efavirenz and nevirapine groups. Conclusion:No evidence was found that use of efavirenz in first-line ART increased the risk for depression or suicidal ideation compared with nevirapine use among PLHIV in Uganda. Primary Funding Source:National Institutes of Health.

Dataset Information

Outcomes for efavirenz versus nevirapine-containing regimens for treatment of HIV-1 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Outcomes for efavirenz versus nevirapine-containing regimens for treatment of HIV-1 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets