OBJECTIVE: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study compared the virological and immunological responses to highly active antiretroviral therapy containing either efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir in previously antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 472 patients were selected (348 efavirenz and 124 lopinavir/ritonavir). The primary endpoint of this study was virological success (HIV RNA <50 copies/mL). The immunological response was assessed on the basis of either CD4+ T cell count variations (absolute and percentage) with respect to baseline values or categorical endpoints (defined as either a CD4+ T cell increase of > or =1;50 cells/mm(3) at week 24 or of > or =1;75 cells/mm(3) at week 48). RESULTS: At intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of virological success for patients who started lopinavir/ritonavir, compared with those who started efavirenz, was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.33-0.89, P = 0.016) at week 24 and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.33-0.89, P = 0.002) at week 48. However, patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir had a more pronounced CD4+ T cell recovery, demonstrating both a mean absolute and percentage increase up to week 48 (MANOVA P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although comparisons of drug efficacy in non-randomized studies should be viewed with caution, from a virological point of view efavirenz-containing regimens performed as well (on-treatment analysis) or better (ITT analysis) than those containing lopinavir/ritonavir. In contrast, immunological outcome appeared to favour lopinavir/ritonavir.
OBJECTIVE: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study compared the virological and immunological responses to highly active antiretroviral therapy containing either efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir in previously antiretroviral-naive HIV-infectedpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 472 patients were selected (348 efavirenz and 124 lopinavir/ritonavir). The primary endpoint of this study was virological success (HIV RNA <50 copies/mL). The immunological response was assessed on the basis of either CD4+ T cell count variations (absolute and percentage) with respect to baseline values or categorical endpoints (defined as either a CD4+ T cell increase of > or =1;50 cells/mm(3) at week 24 or of > or =1;75 cells/mm(3) at week 48). RESULTS: At intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of virological success for patients who started lopinavir/ritonavir, compared with those who started efavirenz, was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.33-0.89, P = 0.016) at week 24 and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.33-0.89, P = 0.002) at week 48. However, patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir had a more pronounced CD4+ T cell recovery, demonstrating both a mean absolute and percentage increase up to week 48 (MANOVA P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although comparisons of drug efficacy in non-randomized studies should be viewed with caution, from a virological point of view efavirenz-containing regimens performed as well (on-treatment analysis) or better (ITT analysis) than those containing lopinavir/ritonavir. In contrast, immunological outcome appeared to favour lopinavir/ritonavir.
Authors: Berta Torres; Norma I Rallón; Montserrat Loncá; Alba Díaz; Llucia Alós; Esteban Martínez; Anna Cruceta; Joan Albert Arnaiz; Lorna Leal; Constanza Lucero; Agathe León; Marcelo Sánchez; Eugenia Negredo; Bonaventura Clotet; José M Gatell; José M Benito; Felipe Garcia Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Carlo Torti; Antonella d'Arminio-Monforte; Anton L Pozniak; Giuseppe Lapadula; Giuliana Cologni; Andrea Antinori; Andrea De Luca; Cristina Mussini; Antonella Castagna; Paola Cicconi; Lorenzo Minoli; Andrea Costantini; Giampiero Carosi; Hua Liang; Bruno M Cesana Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2011-01-25 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Reena Rajasuriar; Maelenn Gouillou; Tim Spelman; Tim Read; Jennifer Hoy; Matthew Law; Paul U Cameron; Kathy Petoumenos; Sharon R Lewin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-06-02 Impact factor: 3.240