BACKGROUND:Antiretroviral therapy is complicated by drug interactions and contraindications. Novel regimens are needed. METHODS: This open label study randomly assigned treatment-naive, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects to receivetenofovir-emtricitabine with efavirenz (Arm I), with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (Arm II), or with zidovudine/abacavir (Arm III). Pair-wise comparisons of differences in time-weighted mean change from baseline plasma HIV-RNA to week 48 formed the primary analysis. Treatment arms were noninferior if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was <0.5 log(10) copies/mL. Secondary objectives included virologic, immunologic and safety end points. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population comprised 322 patients (Arm I, n = 114; Arm II, n = 105; and Arm III, n = 103). Noninferiority for the primary end point was established. Analysis for superiority showed that Arm III was significantly less potent than Arm I (-0.20 log(10) copies/mL; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.01 log(10) copies/mL; P = .038). The proportions of patients on each of Arm I (95%) and Arm II (96%) with <200 copies/mL were not different (P = .75), but the percentage of patients in Arm III with <200 copies/mL (82%) was significantly lower (P = .005). CD4+ cell counts did not differ. Serious adverse events were more frequent in Arm III (n = 30) than in Arm I or Arm II (n = 15 for each; P = .062). CONCLUSIONS: A novel quadruple nucleo(t)side combination demonstrated significantly less suppression of HIV replication, compared with the suppression demonstrated by standard antiretroviral therapy regimens, although it did meet the predetermined formal definition of noninferiority. Secondary analyses indicated statistically inferior virologic and safety performance. Efavirenz and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir arms were equivalent in viral suppression and safety.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy is complicated by drug interactions and contraindications. Novel regimens are needed. METHODS: This open label study randomly assigned treatment-naive, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects to receive tenofovir-emtricitabine with efavirenz (Arm I), with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (Arm II), or with zidovudine/abacavir (Arm III). Pair-wise comparisons of differences in time-weighted mean change from baseline plasma HIV-RNA to week 48 formed the primary analysis. Treatment arms were noninferior if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was <0.5 log(10) copies/mL. Secondary objectives included virologic, immunologic and safety end points. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population comprised 322 patients (Arm I, n = 114; Arm II, n = 105; and Arm III, n = 103). Noninferiority for the primary end point was established. Analysis for superiority showed that Arm III was significantly less potent than Arm I (-0.20 log(10) copies/mL; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.01 log(10) copies/mL; P = .038). The proportions of patients on each of Arm I (95%) and Arm II (96%) with <200 copies/mL were not different (P = .75), but the percentage of patients in Arm III with <200 copies/mL (82%) was significantly lower (P = .005). CD4+ cell counts did not differ. Serious adverse events were more frequent in Arm III (n = 30) than in Arm I or Arm II (n = 15 for each; P = .062). CONCLUSIONS: A novel quadruple nucleo(t)side combination demonstrated significantly less suppression of HIV replication, compared with the suppression demonstrated by standard antiretroviral therapy regimens, although it did meet the predetermined formal definition of noninferiority. Secondary analyses indicated statistically inferior virologic and safety performance. Efavirenz and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir arms were equivalent in viral suppression and safety.
Authors: Heather J Ribaudo; Eric S Daar; Camlin Tierney; Gene D Morse; Katie Mollan; Paul E Sax; Margaret A Fischl; Ann C Collier; David W Haas Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Eric S Daar; Camlin Tierney; Margaret A Fischl; Paul E Sax; Katie Mollan; Chakra Budhathoki; Catherine Godfrey; Nasreen C Jahed; Laurie Myers; David Katzenstein; Awny Farajallah; James F Rooney; Keith A Pappa; William C Woodward; Kristine Patterson; Hector Bolivar; Constance A Benson; Ann C Collier Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-02-14 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michael J Mugavero; Sonia Napravnik; Stephen R Cole; Joseph J Eron; Bryan Lau; Heidi M Crane; Mari M Kitahata; James H Willig; Richard D Moore; Steven G Deeks; Michael S Saag Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Daniel H Johnson; Charles Venuto; Marylyn D Ritchie; Gene D Morse; Eric S Daar; Paul J McLaren; David W Haas Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Álvaro H Borges; Andreas Lundh; Britta Tendal; John A Bartlett; Nathan Clumeck; Dominique Costagliola; Eric S Daar; Patrícia Echeverría; Magnus Gisslén; Tania B Huedo-Medina; Michael D Hughes; Katherine Huppler Hullsiek; Paul Khabo; Stephanus Komati; Princy Kumar; Shahin Lockman; Rodger D MacArthur; Franco Maggiolo; Alberto Matteelli; Jose M Miro; Shinichi Oka; Kathy Petoumenos; Rebekah L Puls; Sharon A Riddler; Paul E Sax; Juan Sierra-Madero; Carlo Torti; Jens D Lundgren Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Alan Winston; Rebekah Puls; Stephen J Kerr; Chris Duncombe; Patrick Li; John M Gill; Reshmie Ramautarsing; Simon D Taylor-Robinson; Sean Emery; David A Cooper Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 3.240