BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend both protease inhibitor (PI)- and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-containing regimens for initial therapy in HIV-positive individuals whilst clinical trial data comparing treatment options remain limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether drug selection (PI versus NNRTI) in antiretroviral-naive patients is related to virological response at 6 months within a clinical cohort. DESIGN: Databases from two large clinics were used to identify all treatment-naive patients initiating highly active antiretroviral therapy (PI/ two PI or NNRTI). Statistical models determined the likelihood of suppressing HIV viral load < 500 copies/ml, the risk of treatment failure by 6 months, and factors associated with treatment success. RESULTS: Of 1109 potentially eligible patients 888 met study criteria and were included; 484 were prescribed a PI (40% indinavir, 41% nelfinavir) and 404 were prescribed NNRTI (40% efavirenz, 60% nevirapine). Three treatment arms were compared: efavirenz versus nevirapine versus PI. After stratification by year and centre and adjustment for baseline variables, only treatment group and baseline viral load remained significantly associated with virological suppression at 6 months. Patients on efavirenz were significantly more likely to achieve an undetectable viral load than those on PI or nevirapine. The relative hazard for nevirapine was 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.96, P = 0.02) and that for PI was 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.94, P = 0.01). Efavirenz also performed better in the analysis of treatment failure at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Although observational cohort data may be susceptible to significant bias, this study suggests a better initial virological response for efavirenz compared to either nevirapine or the PI. Clinical trial data is required to confirm these findings.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend both protease inhibitor (PI)- and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-containing regimens for initial therapy in HIV-positive individuals whilst clinical trial data comparing treatment options remain limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether drug selection (PI versus NNRTI) in antiretroviral-naive patients is related to virological response at 6 months within a clinical cohort. DESIGN: Databases from two large clinics were used to identify all treatment-naive patients initiating highly active antiretroviral therapy (PI/ two PI or NNRTI). Statistical models determined the likelihood of suppressing HIV viral load < 500 copies/ml, the risk of treatment failure by 6 months, and factors associated with treatment success. RESULTS: Of 1109 potentially eligible patients 888 met study criteria and were included; 484 were prescribed a PI (40% indinavir, 41% nelfinavir) and 404 were prescribed NNRTI (40% efavirenz, 60% nevirapine). Three treatment arms were compared: efavirenz versus nevirapine versus PI. After stratification by year and centre and adjustment for baseline variables, only treatment group and baseline viral load remained significantly associated with virological suppression at 6 months. Patients on efavirenz were significantly more likely to achieve an undetectable viral load than those on PI or nevirapine. The relative hazard for nevirapine was 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.96, P = 0.02) and that for PI was 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.94, P = 0.01). Efavirenz also performed better in the analysis of treatment failure at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Although observational cohort data may be susceptible to significant bias, this study suggests a better initial virological response for efavirenz compared to either nevirapine or the PI. Clinical trial data is required to confirm these findings.
Authors: Xiuhong Li; Joseph B Margolick; Beth D Jamieson; Charles R Rinaldo; John P Phair; Lisa P Jacobson Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2011-08-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Lauren E Cain; Andrew Phillips; Sara Lodi; Caroline Sabin; Loveleen Bansi; Amy Justice; Janet Tate; Roger Logan; James M Robins; Jonathan A C Sterne; Ard van Sighem; Frank de Wolf; Heiner C Bucher; Luigia Elzi; Giota Touloumi; Georgia Vourli; Anna Esteve; Jordi Casabona; Julia del Amo; Santiago Moreno; Rémonie Seng; Laurence Meyer; Santiago Pérez-Hoyos; Roberto Muga; Sophie Abgrall; Dominique Costagliola; Miguel A Hernán Journal: AIDS Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Allison L Agwu; George K Siberry; Jonathan Ellen; John A Fleishman; Richard Rutstein; Aditya H Gaur; P Todd Korthuis; Robert Warford; Stephen A Spector; Kelly A Gebo Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2011-11-04 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: N M Ferguson; C A Donnelly; J Hooper; A C Ghani; C Fraser; L M Bartley; R A Rode; P Vernazza; D Lapins; S L Mayer; R M Anderson Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2005-09-22 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: Daria Trabattoni; Sergio Lo Caputo; Mara Biasin; Elena Seminari; Massimo Di Pietro; Giovanni Ravasi; Francesco Mazzotta; Renato Maserati; Mario Clerici Journal: Clin Diagn Lab Immunol Date: 2002-09
Authors: Allison Agwu; Jane C Lindsey; Kimberly Ferguson; Haili Zhang; Stephen Spector; Bret J Rudy; Stuart C Ray; Steven D Douglas; Patricia M Flynn; Deborah Persaud Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Michael J Mugavero; Margaret May; Ross Harris; Michael S Saag; Dominique Costagliola; Matthias Egger; Andrew Phillips; Huldrych F Günthard; Francois Dabis; Robert Hogg; Frank de Wolf; Gerd Fatkenheuer; M John Gill; Amy Justice; Antonella D'Arminio Monforte; Fiona Lampe; Jose M Miró; Schlomo Staszewski; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: AIDS Date: 2008-11-30 Impact factor: 4.177