Dataset Information

Durability of Efavirenz Compared With Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Regimens in Antiretroviral-Naive Patients in the Caribbean and Central and South America.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Efavirenz (EFV) and boosted protease inhibitors (bPIs) are still the preferred options for firstline antiretroviral regimens (firstline ART) in Latin America and have comparable short-term efficacy. We assessed the long-term durability and outcomes of patients receiving EFV or bPIs as firstline ART in the Caribbean, Central and South America network for HIV epidemiology (CCASAnet).

Methods

We included ART-naïve, HIV-positive adults on EFV or bPIs as firstline ART in CCASAnet between 2000 and 2016. We investigated the time from starting until ending firstline ART according to changes of third component for any reason, including toxicity and treatment failure, death, and/or loss to follow-up. Use of a third-line regimen was a secondary outcome. Kaplan-Meier estimators of composite end points were generated. Crude cumulative incidence of events and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were estimated accounting for competing risk events.

Results

We included 14 519 patients: 12 898 (89%) started EFV and 1621 (11%) bPIs. The adjusted median years on firstline ART were 4.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4-4.7) on EFV and 3.8 (95% CI, 3.8-4.0) on bPI (P < .001). Cumulative incidence of firstline ART ending at 10 years of follow-up was 32% (95% CI, 31-33) on EFV and 44% (95% CI, 39-48) on bPI (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.97). The cumulative incidence rates of third-line initiation in the bPI-based group were 6% (95% CI, 2.4-9.6) and 2% (95% CI, 1.4-2.2) among the EFV-based group (P < .01).

Conclusions

Durability of firstline ART was longer with EFV than with bPIs. EFV-based regimens may continue to be the preferred firstline regimen for our region in the near future due to their high efficacy, relatively low toxicity (especially at lower doses), existence of generic formulations, and affordability for national programs.

SUBMITTER: Caro-Vega Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5836274 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Durability of Efavirenz Compared With Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Regimens in Antiretroviral-Naïve Patients in the Caribbean and Central and South America.

Caro-Vega Yanink Y Belaunzarán-Zamudio Pablo F PF Crabtree-Ramírez Brenda E BE Shepherd Bryan E BE Grinsztejn Beatriz B Wolff Marcelo M Pape Jean W JW Padgett Denis D Gotuzzo Eduardo E McGowan Catherine C CC Sierra-Madero Juan G JG

Open forum infectious diseases 20180302 3

<h4>Background</h4>Efavirenz (EFV) and boosted protease inhibitors (bPIs) are still the preferred options for firstline antiretroviral regimens (firstline ART) in Latin America and have comparable short-term efficacy. We assessed the long-term durability and outcomes of patients receiving EFV or bPIs as firstline ART in the Caribbean, Central and South America network for HIV epidemiology (CCASAnet).<h4>Methods</h4>We included ART-naïve, HIV-positive adults on EFV or bPIs as firstline ART in CCA ...[more]

PMID: 29527539

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccording 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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/μl, with a median viral load of 820,200 copies/μl 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.ConclusionsComposite 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.Trial registrationNCT01805258 (Retrospectively registered on March 6, 2013) Date of registration: March 2013.

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: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.

Project description:Background and objectivesLong-term use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) to treat HIV infection has been associated with dyslipidemia and metabolic and cardiovascular complications. Available options for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease include antiretroviral drugs with improved lipid profiles. Dolutegravir is one of a new generation of HIV integrase inhibitors recently incorporated into the US Department of Health and Human Services, German, Spanish, and Italian HIV treatment guidelines as a preferred first-line third agent in combination with dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone therapies. To understand the lipid profile of dolutegravir in the context of combination ART, we analyzed the lipid outcomes at 48 weeks in ART-naive participants in four phase IIb-IIIb clinical trials.MethodsVariables included in this analysis were total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (HDL-C), TC/HDL ratio, and triglycerides at baseline and week 48.ResultsIn a comparative analysis, dolutegravir demonstrated a broadly neutral effect on lipids versus efavirenz or ritonavir-boosted darunavir; in both comparisons, patients taking dolutegravir exhibited smaller increases in TC, LDL-C, and triglyceride levels. In comparison with raltegravir, dolutegravir exhibited a similar lipid profile, including small increases in TC, LDL-C, and triglyceride levels for both agents. In the pooled dolutegravir analysis, minimal increases in LDL-C and triglycerides were observed but mean values at 48 weeks remained below National Cholesterol Education Program target levels. HDL-C levels increased at 48 weeks, and the mean TC/HDL-C ratio was 0.6 at 48 weeks; these values are associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease.ConclusionsTogether, these data show that dolutegravir has a safer lipid profile in combination ART and provides an important treatment option for older patients who may have other risk factors for metabolic syndrome or cardiovascular disease.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were conducted to evaluate dolutegravir based triple antiretroviral therapy (ART) compared to other triple antiretroviral regimens in naïve patients, and a summary of the available evidence is required to shed more light on safety and effectiveness issues.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing dolutegravir-containing ART to non-dolutegravir containing ART in HIV-infected naive patients. Primary outcomes: % of patients with viral load<50 copies/mL at 48 weeks, stratified according to baseline viral load levels (< or >100.000 copies/mL); overall rate of discontinuation and/or switching for any cause (virologic failure, clinical failure, adverse events). Measure of treatment effect: Risk Difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.ResultsWe included 7 RCTs (13 reports, 6407patients) comparing dolutegravir containing to non-dolutegravir containing ART, both in combination with 2 NRTIs. Controls were raltegravir or bictegravir (3 RCTs), boosted atazanavir or darunavir (2 RCTs) or efavirenz (2 RCTs). Rates of patients with VL <50 copies/ml were higher in dolutegravir recipients compared to controls at 48 weeks (RD, 0.05; 95% CIs, 0.03/0.08, p = 0.0002) and 96 weeks (RD, 0.06; 95% CIs, 0.03/0.10, p<0.0001); the average benefit of using dolutegravir was particularly evident at 48 weeks in the subgroup of patients with high baseline viral load (RD, 0.10; 95% CIs, 0.05/0.15; p< 0.0001; GRADE assessment: "high certainty of evidence"). Overall rate of discontinuation were lower in dolutegravir compared to controls (RD,-0.03, 95% CIs -0.05/-0.01; p = 0.007). No significant differences were observed in rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (RD, -0.02; 95% CIs, -0.05/0.00), virologic failure (RD, -0.01; 95% CIs, -0.02/0.01), and most common adverse events (GRADE assessment: from "very-low" to "moderate certainty of evidence").ConclusionStarting treatment in naive patients with dolutegravir containing ART has an increased likelihood of achieving viral suppression in the comparison with non-dolutegravir containing ART. The average benefit is particularly evident in those with high baseline viral load.