Dataset Information

Nevirapine-based regimens in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nevirapine belongs to the group of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and is commonly administered in first-line treatment of HIV infection.

Objective

Systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to compare effectiveness of nevirapine-based regimens with other antiretroviral schedules used as an initial treatment of HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive subjects.

Methods

Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Trip Database) were searched up to 28 December 2012 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published as a full text and regarding nevirapine-based regimens used as a initial treatment for HIV infection. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan(®) V 5.2 software.

Results

Twelve RCTs were included in the systematic review and all of them were suitable for meta-analysis. Results of the meta-analysis have shown that nevirapine, efavirenz, and ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor, added to the background regimens, were equally effective in terms of reaching undetectable plasma HIV RNA level as well as risk of disease progression or death. Compared with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based regimens, nevirapine-based regimens statistically significantly increased the risk of discontinuation of assigned treatment (RR=3.10; 95% CI: 1.14-8.41; p<0.05).

Conclusions

Despite limited RCTs data available for particular comparisons, our results suggest that nevirapine-based regimens may be considered for first-line treatment of HIV-infected adults, due to their comparable efficacy to the other currently recommended initial antiretroviral therapies.

SUBMITTER: Kawalec P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3792044 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nevirapine-based regimens in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kawalec Paweł P Kryst Joanna J Mikrut Alicja A Pilc Andrzej A

PloS one 20131007 10

<h4>Background</h4>Nevirapine belongs to the group of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and is commonly administered in first-line treatment of HIV infection.<h4>Objective</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to compare effectiveness of nevirapine-based regimens with other antiretroviral schedules used as an initial treatment of HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive subjects.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Trip Data ...[more]

PMID: 24116123

Similar Datasets

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: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: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:Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy is not suitable for all treatment-naive HIV-infected persons.To evaluate 3 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing initial antiretroviral regimens to show equivalence for virologic efficacy and tolerability.A phase 3, open-label study randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio with follow-up for at least 96 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00811954).57 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico.Treatment-naive persons aged 18 years or older with HIV-1 RNA levels greater than 1000 copies/mL without resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or protease inhibitors.Atazanavir, 300 mg/d, with ritonavir, 100 mg/d; raltegravir, 400 mg twice daily; or darunavir, 800 mg/d, with ritonavir, 100 mg/d, plus combination emtricitabine, 200 mg/d, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 300 mg/d.Virologic failure, defined as a confirmed HIV-1 RNA level greater than 1000 copies/mL at or after 16 weeks and before 24 weeks or greater than 200 copies/mL at or after 24 weeks, and tolerability failure, defined as discontinuation of atazanavir, raltegravir, or darunavir for toxicity. A secondary end point was a combination of virologic efficacy and tolerability.Among 1809 participants, all pairwise comparisons of incidence of virologic failure over 96 weeks showed equivalence within a margin of equivalence defined as -10% to 10%. Raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir were equivalent for tolerability, whereas ritonavir-boosted atazanavir resulted in a 12.7% and 9.2% higher incidence of tolerability discontinuation than raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir, respectively, primarily because of hyperbilirubinemia. For combined virologic efficacy and tolerability, ritonavir-boosted darunavir was superior to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, and raltegravir was superior to both protease inhibitors. Antiretroviral resistance at the time of virologic failure was rare but more frequent with raltegravir.The trial was open-label, and ritonavir was not provided.Over 2 years, all 3 regimens attained high and equivalent rates of virologic control. Tolerability of regimens containing raltegravir or ritonavir-boosted darunavir was superior to that of the ritonavir-boosted atazanavir regimen.National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were conducted to evaluate dolutegravir based triple antiretroviral therapy (ART) compared to other triple antiretroviral regimens in naïve patients, and a summary of the available evidence is required to shed more light on safety and effectiveness issues.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing dolutegravir-containing ART to non-dolutegravir containing ART in HIV-infected naive patients. Primary outcomes: % of patients with viral load<50 copies/mL at 48 weeks, stratified according to baseline viral load levels (< or >100.000 copies/mL); overall rate of discontinuation and/or switching for any cause (virologic failure, clinical failure, adverse events). Measure of treatment effect: Risk Difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.ResultsWe included 7 RCTs (13 reports, 6407patients) comparing dolutegravir containing to non-dolutegravir containing ART, both in combination with 2 NRTIs. Controls were raltegravir or bictegravir (3 RCTs), boosted atazanavir or darunavir (2 RCTs) or efavirenz (2 RCTs). Rates of patients with VL <50 copies/ml were higher in dolutegravir recipients compared to controls at 48 weeks (RD, 0.05; 95% CIs, 0.03/0.08, p = 0.0002) and 96 weeks (RD, 0.06; 95% CIs, 0.03/0.10, p<0.0001); the average benefit of using dolutegravir was particularly evident at 48 weeks in the subgroup of patients with high baseline viral load (RD, 0.10; 95% CIs, 0.05/0.15; p< 0.0001; GRADE assessment: "high certainty of evidence"). Overall rate of discontinuation were lower in dolutegravir compared to controls (RD,-0.03, 95% CIs -0.05/-0.01; p = 0.007). No significant differences were observed in rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (RD, -0.02; 95% CIs, -0.05/0.00), virologic failure (RD, -0.01; 95% CIs, -0.02/0.01), and most common adverse events (GRADE assessment: from "very-low" to "moderate certainty of evidence").ConclusionStarting treatment in naive patients with dolutegravir containing ART has an increased likelihood of achieving viral suppression in the comparison with non-dolutegravir containing ART. The average benefit is particularly evident in those with high baseline viral load.

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:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of four drug (quadruple) versus three drug (triple) combination antiretroviral therapies in treatment naive people with HIV, and explore the implications of existing trials for clinical practice and research.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from March 2001 to December 2016 (updated search in PubMed and EMBASE up to June 2018); and reference lists of eligible studies and related reviews.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing quadruple with triple combination antiretroviral therapies in treatment naive people with HIV and evaluating at least one effectiveness or safety outcome.Review methodsOutcomes of interest included undetectable HIV-1 RNA, CD4 T cell count, virological failure, new AIDS defining events, death, and severe adverse effects. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted.ResultsTwelve trials (including 4251 people with HIV) were eligible. Quadruple and triple combination antiretroviral therapies had similar effects on all relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes, with no point estimates favouring quadruple therapy. With the triple therapy as the reference group, the risk ratio was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.05) for undetectable HIV-1 RNA, 1.00 (0.90 to 1.11) for virological failure, 1.17 (0.84 to 1.63) for new AIDS defining events, 1.23 (0.74 to 2.05) for death, and 1.09 (0.89 to 1.33) for severe adverse effects. The mean difference in CD4 T cell count increase between the two groups was -19.55 cells/?L (-43.02 to 3.92). In general, the results were similar, regardless of the specific regimens of combination antiretroviral therapies, and were robust in all subgroup and sensitivity analyses.ConclusionIn this study, effects of quadruple combination antiretroviral therapy were not better than triple combination antiretroviral therapy in treatment naive people with HIV. This finding lends support to current guidelines recommending the triple regimen as first line treatment. Further trials on this topic should be conducted only when new research is justified by adequate systematic reviews of the existing evidence. However, this study cannot exclude the possibility that quadruple cART would be better than triple cART when new classes of antiretroviral drugs are made available.

Dataset Information

Nevirapine-based regimens in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Nevirapine-based regimens in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets