Dataset Information

Nevirapine- versus Efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV and Tuberculosis infections in India: a multi-centre study.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Sinha S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5725946 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nevirapine- versus Efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV and Tuberculosis infections in India: a multi-centre study.

Sinha Sanjeev S Gupta Kartik K Tripathy Srikanth S Dhooria Sahajal S Ranjan Sanjay S Pandey R M RM

BMC infectious diseases 20171211 1

<h4>Background</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 29228918

Similar Datasets

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: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.).

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.

Dataset Information

Nevirapine- versus Efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV and Tuberculosis infections in India: a multi-centre study.

Publications

Nevirapine- versus Efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV and Tuberculosis infections in India: a multi-centre study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets