Dataset Information

Class-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection.

ABSTRACT: The use of either efavirenz or lopinavir-ritonavir plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) is recommended for initial therapy for patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but which of the two regimens has greater efficacy is not known. The alternative regimen of lopinavir-ritonavir plus efavirenz may prevent toxic effects associated with NRTIs.In an open-label study, we compared three regimens for initial therapy: efavirenz plus two NRTIs (efavirenz group), lopinavir-ritonavir plus two NRTIs (lopinavir-ritonavir group), and lopinavir-ritonavir plus efavirenz (NRTI-sparing group). We randomly assigned 757 patients with a median CD4 count of 191 cells per cubic millimeter and a median HIV-1 RNA level of 4.8 log10 copies per milliliter to the three groups.At a median follow-up of 112 weeks, the time to virologic failure was longer in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (P=0.006) but was not significantly different in the NRTI-sparing group from the time in either of the other two groups. At week 96, the proportion of patients with fewer than 50 copies of plasma HIV-1 RNA per milliliter was 89% in the efavirenz group, 77% in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 83% in the NRTI-sparing group (P=0.003 for the comparison between the efavirenz group and the lopinavir-ritonavir group). The groups did not differ significantly in the time to discontinuation because of toxic effects. At virologic failure, antiretroviral resistance mutations were more frequent in the NRTI-sparing group than in the other two groups.Virologic failure was less likely in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group. The virologic efficacy of the NRTI-sparing regimen was similar to that of the efavirenz regimen but was more likely to be associated with drug resistance. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00050895 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

SUBMITTER: Riddler SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3885902 | biostudies-literature | 2008 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Class-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection.

Riddler Sharon A SA Haubrich Richard R DiRienzo A Gregory AG Peeples Lynne L Powderly William G WG Klingman Karin L KL Garren Kevin W KW George Tania T Rooney James F JF Brizz Barbara B Lalloo Umesh G UG Murphy Robert L RL Swindells Susan S Havlir Diane D Mellors John W JW

The New England journal of medicine 20080501 20

<h4>Background</h4>The use of either efavirenz or lopinavir-ritonavir plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) is recommended for initial therapy for patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but which of the two regimens has greater efficacy is not known. The alternative regimen of lopinavir-ritonavir plus efavirenz may prevent toxic effects associated with NRTIs.<h4>Methods</h4>In an open-label study, we compared three regimens for initial therapy ...[more]

PMID: 18480202

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The optimal sequencing of antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) is unknown. We compared several different antiretroviral treatment strategies. METHODS:This multicenter, randomized, partially double-blind trial used a factorial design to compare pairs of sequential three-drug regimens, starting with a regimen including zidovudine and lamivudine or a regimen including didanosine and stavudine in combination with either nelfinavir or efavirenz. The primary end point was the length of time to the failure of the second three-drug regimen. RESULTS:A total of 620 subjects who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were followed for a median of 2.3 years. Starting with a three-drug regimen containing efavirenz combined with zidovudine and lamivudine (but not efavirenz combined with didanosine and stavudine) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with a regimen containing nelfinavir (hazard ratio for failure of the second regimen, 0.71; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.48 to 1.06), as well as to delay the second virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.09), and significantly delayed the failure of the first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.39) and the first virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.34). Starting with zidovudine and lamivudine combined with efavirenz (but not zidovudine and lamivudine combined with nelfinavir) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with didanosine and stavudine (hazard ratio, 0.68), and significantly delayed both the first and the second virologic failures (hazard ratio for the first virologic failure, 0.39; hazard ratio for the second virologic failure, 0.47), as well as the failure of the first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.35). The initial use of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz resulted in a shorter time to viral suppression. CONCLUSIONS:The efficacy of antiretroviral drugs depends on how they are combined. The combination of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz is superior to the other antiretroviral regimens used as initial therapy in this study.

Project description:It is unclear whether therapy for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) should be initiated with a four-drug or two sequential three-drug regimens.In this multicenter trial we compared initial therapy involving four-drug regimens containing efavirenz and nelfinavir in combination with either didanosine and stavudine or zidovudine and lamivudine with therapy involving two consecutive three-drug regimens the first of which contained either efavirenz or nelfinavir.A total of 980 subjects were followed for a median of 2.3 years. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of regimen failures between the group that received the four-drug regimen containing didanosine, stavudine, nelfinavir, and efavirenz and the groups that received the three-drug regimens beginning with didanosine, stavudine, and nelfinavir (hazard ratio for regimen failure, 1.24) or didanosine, stavudine, and efavirenz (hazard ratio, 1.01). There was no significant difference between the group that received the four-drug regimen containing zidovudine, lamivudine, nelfinavir, and efavirenz and the groups that received the three-drug regimens beginning with zidovudine, lamivudine, and nelfinavir (hazard ratio, 1.06) or zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz (hazard ratio, 1.45). A four-drug regimen was associated with a longer time to the first regimen failure than the three-drug regimens containing didanosine, stavudine, and nelfinavir (hazard ratio for a first regimen failure, 0.55); didanosine, stavudine, and efavirenz (hazard ratio, 0.63); or zidovudine, lamivudine, and nelfinavir (hazard ratio, 0.49), but not the three-drug regimen containing zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz (hazard ratio, 1.21).There was no significant difference in the duration of successful HIV-1 treatment between a single four-drug regimen and two consecutive three-drug regimens. Among these treatment strategies, initiating therapy with the three-drug regimen of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz is the optimal choice.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:China has continued to expand antiretroviral therapy (ART) services and optimise ART guidelines in an effort to significantly reduce and prevent mortality and transmission rates among HIV patients. However, no study to date has compared treatment outcomes of initial differential antiretroviral regimens among HIV patients in a real-world setting in China. This study aimed to compare the effects of different ART regimens on treatment outcomes among adults. DESIGN:Observational retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Data from 2011 to 2013 in Guangxi, China. PARTICIPANTS:Patients aged ?18 years (n=25?732) were selected. RESULTS:A total of 25?732 patients were included in this study. The average mortality and attrition rate were 2.64 and 4.98, respectively, per 100 person-years. Using Cox proportional hazard models, zidovudine-based (AZT-based) regimen versus stavudine-based (D4T-based) regimen had an adjusted HR (AHR) for death of 0.65 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.73); the AHR of tenofovir-based (TDF-based) versus D4T-based regimens was 0.81 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.92), and of lopinavir-ritonavir-based (LPV/r-based) versus D4T-based regimens, 1.19 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.37). AZT-based versus D4T-based regimens had an AHR for dropout of 0.89 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); this ratio for TDF-based versus D4T-based regimens was 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.98), and for LPV/r-based versus D4T-based regimens, 1.42 (95% CI 1.27 to 1.58). AZT-based and TDF-based regimens had a lower risk compared with D4T-based regimens, while LPV/r-based regimens had a higher risk. High gastrointestinal reactions and poor adherence were observed among HIV patients whose initial ART regimen was LPV/r-based. CONCLUSIONS:Our study found that the treatment outcomes of initial ART regimens that were AZT-based or TDF-based were significantly better than D4T-based or LPV/r-based regimens. This finding could be related to the higher rates of gastrointestinal reactions and poorer adherence associated with the LPV/r-based regimens compared with other initial ART regimens.

Dataset Information

Class-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection.

Publications

Class-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets