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:BackgroundAccording 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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/μl, with a median viral load of 820,200 copies/μl 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.ConclusionsComposite 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.Trial registrationNCT01805258 (Retrospectively registered on March 6, 2013) Date of registration: March 2013.

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: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.).

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:WHO recommends starting therapy with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), i.e. nevirapine or efavirenz, with lamivudine or emtricitabine, plus zidovudine or tenofovir. Few studies have compared resistance patterns induced by efavirenz and nevirapine in patients infected with the CRF01_AE Southeast Asian HIV-subtype. We compared patterns of NNRTI- and NRTI-associated mutations in Thai adults failing first-line nevirapine- and efavirenz-based combinations, using bayesian statistics to optimize use of data.In a treatment cohort of HIV-infected adults on NNRTI-based regimens, 119 experienced virologic failure (>500 copies/mL), with resistance mutations detected by consensus sequencing. Mutations were analyzed in relation to demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables at time of genotyping. The Geno2Pheno system was used to evaluate second-line drug options. Eighty-nine subjects were on nevirapine and 30 on efavirenz. The NRTI backbone consisted of lamivudine or emtricitabine plus either zidovudine (37), stavudine (65), or tenofovir (19). The K103N mutation was detected in 83% of patients on efavirenz vs. 28% on nevirapine, whereas Y181C was detected in 56% on nevirapine vs. 20% efavirenz. M184V was more common with nevirapine (87%) than efavirenz (63%). Nevirapine favored TAM-2 resistance pathways whereas efavirenz selected both TAM-2 and TAM-1 pathways. Emergence of TAM-2 mutations increased with the duration of virologic replication (OR 1.25-1.87 per month increment). In zidovudine-containing regimens, the overall risk of resistance across all drugs was lower with nevirapine than with efavirenz, whereas in tenofovir-containing regimen the opposite was true.TAM-2 was the major NRTI resistance pathway for CRF01_AE, particularly with nevirapine; it appeared late after virological failure. In patients who failed, there appeared to be more second-line drug options when zidovudine was combined with nevirapine or tenofovir with efavirenz than with alternative combinations.

Project description:The impact of minor drug-resistant variants of the type 1 immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) on the failure of antiretroviral therapy remains unclear. We have evaluated the importance of detecting minor populations of viruses resistant to non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) during intermittent antiretroviral therapy, a high-risk context for the emergence of drug-resistant HIV-1. We carried out a longitudinal study on plasma samples taken from 21 patients given efavirenz and enrolled in the intermittent arm of the ANRS 106 trial. Allele-specific real-time PCR was used to detect and quantify minor K103N mutants during off-therapy periods. The concordance with ultra-deep pyrosequencing was assessed for 11 patients. The pharmacokinetics of efavirenz was assayed to determine whether its variability could influence the emergence of K103N mutants. Allele-specific real-time PCR detected K103N mutants in 15 of the 19 analyzable patients at the end of an off-therapy period while direct sequencing detected mutants in only 6 patients. The frequency of K103N mutants was <0.1% in 7 patients by allele-specific real-time PCR without further selection, and >0.1% in 8. It was 0.1%-10% in 6 of these 8 patients. The mutated virus populations of 4 of these 6 patients underwent further selection and treatment failed for 2 of them. The K103N mutant frequency was >10% in the remaining 2, treatment failed for one. The copy numbers of K103N variants quantified by allele-specific real-time PCR and ultra-deep pyrosequencing agreed closely (??=?0.89 P<0.0001). The half-life of efavirenz was higher (50.5 hours) in the 8 patients in whom K103N emerged (>0.1%) than in the 11 patients in whom it did not (32 hours) (P?=?0.04). Thus ultrasensitive methods could prove more useful than direct sequencing for predicting treatment failure in some patients. However the presence of minor NNRTI-resistant viruses need not always result in virological escape.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00122551.

Project description:This is a substudy of the Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida et les Hépatites Virales (ANRS) Comparison of Nevirapine and Efavirenz for the Treatment of HIV-TB Co-infected Patients (ANRS 12146-CARINEMO) trial, which assessed the pharmacokinetics of rifampin or isoniazid with or without the coadministration of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based HIV antiretroviral therapy in HIV-tuberculosis-coinfected patients in Mozambique. Thirty-eight patients on antituberculosis therapy based on rifampin and isoniazid participated in the substudy (57.9% males; median age, 33 years; median weight, 51.9 kg; median CD4(+) T cell count, 104 cells/μl; median HIV-1 RNA load, 5.5 log copies/ml). The daily doses of rifampin and isoniazid were 10 and 5 mg/kg of body weight, respectively. Twenty-one patients received 200 mg of nevirapine twice a day (b.i.d.), and 17 patients received 600 mg of efavirenz once a day (q.d.) in combination with lamivudine and stavudine from day 1 until the end of the study. Blood samples were collected at regular time-dosing intervals after morning administration of a fixed-dose combination of rifampin and isoniazid. When rifampin was administered alone, the median maximum concentration of drug in serum (Cmax) and the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) at steady state were 6.59 mg/liter (range, 2.70 to 14.07 mg/liter) and 27.69 mg · h/liter (range, 11.41 to 109.75 mg · h/liter), respectively. Concentrations remained unchanged when rifampin was coadministered with nevirapine or efavirenz. When isoniazid was administered alone, the median isoniazid Cmax and AUC at steady state were 5.08 mg/liter (range, 1.26 to 11.51 mg/liter) and 20.92 mg · h/liter (range, 7.73 to 56.95 mg · h/liter), respectively. Concentrations remained unchanged when isoniazid was coadministered with nevirapine; however, a 29% decrease in the isoniazid AUC was observed when isoniazid was combined with efavirenz. The pharmacokinetic parameters of rifampin and isoniazid when coadministered with nevirapine or efavirenz were not altered to a clinically significant extent in these severely immunosuppressed HIV-infected patients. Patients experienced favorable clinical outcomes. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00495326.).

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

Tweets