Dataset Information

Association between efavirenz-based compared with nevirapine-based antiretroviral regimens and virological failure in HIV-infected children.

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.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.

SUBMITTER: Lowenthal ED

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3748602 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association between efavirenz-based compared with nevirapine-based antiretroviral regimens and virological failure in HIV-infected children.

Lowenthal Elizabeth D ED Ellenberg Jonas H JH Machine Edwin E Sagdeo Aditi A Boiditswe Sefelani S Steenhoff Andrew P AP Rutstein Richard R Anabwani Gabriel G Gross Robert R

JAMA 20130501 17

<h4>Importance</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate whether virological failure is more likely among children who initiated 1 or the other NNRTI-based HIV treatment.<h4>Design, setting, ...[more]

PMID: 23632724

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAdvantages of using efavirenz as part of treatment for children infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) include once-daily dosing, simplification of co-treatment for tuberculosis, preservation of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir for second-line treatment, and harmonization of adult and pediatric treatment regimens. However, there have been concerns about possible reduced viral efficacy of efavirenz in children exposed to nevirapine for prevention of mother-to-child transmission.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether nevirapine-exposed children achieving initial viral suppression with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy can transition to efavirenz-based therapy without risk of viral failure.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, open-label noninferiority trial conducted at Rahima Moosa Mother and Child Hospital, Johannesburg, South Africa, from June 2010 to December 2013, enrolling 300 HIV-infected children exposed to nevirapine for prevention of mother-to-child transmission who were aged 3 years or older and had plasma HIV RNA of less than 50 copies/mL during ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy; 298 were randomized and 292 (98%) were followed up to 48 weeks after randomization.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to switch to efavirenz-based therapy (n = 150) or continue ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy (n = 148).Main outcomes and measuresRisk difference between groups in (1) viral rebound (ie, ≥1 HIV RNA measurement of >50 copies/mL) and (2) viral failure (ie, confirmed HIV RNA >1000 copies/mL) with a noninferiority bound of -0.10. Immunologic and clinical responses were secondary end points.ResultsThe Kaplan-Meier probability of viral rebound by 48 weeks was 0.176 (n = 26) in the efavirenz group and 0.284 (n = 42) in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group. Probabilities of viral failure were 0.027 (n = 4) in the efavirenz group and 0.020 (n = 3) in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group. The risk difference for viral rebound was 0.107 (1-sided 95% CI, 0.028 to ∞) and for viral failure was -0.007 (1-sided 95% CI, -0.036 to ∞). We rejected the null hypothesis that efavirenz is inferior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (P < .001) for both end points. By 48 weeks, CD4 cell percentage was 2.88% (95% CI, 1.26%-4.49%) higher in the efavirenz group than in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong HIV-infected children exposed to nevirapine for prevention of mother-to-child transmission and with initial viral suppression with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy, switching to efavirenz-based therapy compared with continuing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy did not result in significantly higher rates of viral rebound or viral failure. This therapeutic approach may offer advantages in children such as these.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01146873.

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:There is conflicting evidence of the impact of commonly used antiretroviral therapies (ARTs) on the pharmacokinetics of lumefantrine and the safety profile of artemether-lumefantrine. We compared the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 h to 14 days (AUC0-14 days) of lumefantrine and the safety profile of artemether-lumefantrine in malaria-negative human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adults in two steps. In step 1, a half-dose adult course of artemether-lumefantrine was administered as a safety check in four groups (n = 6/group): (i) antiretroviral naive, (ii) nevirapine-based ART, (iii) efavirenz-based ART, and (iv) ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based ART. In step 2, a standard-dose adult course of artemether-lumefantrine was administered to a different cohort in three groups (n = 10 to 15/group): (i) antiretroviral naive, (ii) efavirenz-based ART, and (iii) ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based ART. In step 1, lumefantrine's AUC0-14 days was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 0.82) lower in the efavirenz-based ART group than in the ART-naive group and was 2.4 (95% CI, 1.58 to 3.62) and 2.9(95% CI, 1.75 to 4.72) times higher in the nevirapine- and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir groups, respectively. In step 2, lumefantrine's AUC0-14 days was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.26 to 3.00) times higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group and not significantly different between the efavirenz- and ART-naive groups (0.99 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.57]). Frequent cases of hematological abnormalities (thrombocytopenia and neutropenia) were observed in the nevirapine group in step 1, leading to a recommendation from the data and safety monitoring board not to include a nevirapine group in step 2. Artemether-lumefantrine was well tolerated in the other groups. The therapeutic implications of these findings need to be evaluated among HIV-malaria-coinfected adults. (This study has been registered at the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry under numbers PACTR2010030001871293 and PACTR2010030001971409.).

Dataset Information

Association between efavirenz-based compared with nevirapine-based antiretroviral regimens and virological failure in HIV-infected children.

Publications

Association between efavirenz-based compared with nevirapine-based antiretroviral regimens and virological failure in HIV-infected children.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure