Class-Sparing Regimens for Initial Treatment of HIV-1 Infection
Top Cited Papers
- 15 May 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 358 (20) , 2095-2106
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa074609
Abstract
The use of either efavirenz or lopinavir–ritonavir plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) is recommended for initial therapy for patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but which of the two regimens has greater efficacy is not known. The alternative regimen of lopinavir–ritonavir plus efavirenz may prevent toxic effects associated with NRTIs. In an open-label study, we compared three regimens for initial therapy: efavirenz plus two NRTIs (efavirenz group), lopinavir–ritonavir plus two NRTIs (lopinavir–ritonavir group), and lopinavir–ritonavir plus efavirenz (NRTI-sparing group). We randomly assigned 757 patients with a median CD4 count of 191 cells per cubic millimeter and a median HIV-1 RNA level of 4.8 log10 copies per milliliter to the three groups. At a median follow-up of 112 weeks, the time to virologic failure was longer in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir–ritonavir group (P=0.006) but was not significantly different in the NRTI-sparing group from the time in either of the other two groups. At week 96, the proportion of patients with fewer than 50 copies of plasma HIV-1 RNA per milliliter was 89% in the efavirenz group, 77% in the lopinavir–ritonavir group, and 83% in the NRTI-sparing group (P=0.003 for the comparison between the efavirenz group and the lopinavir–ritonavir group). The groups did not differ significantly in the time to discontinuation because of toxic effects. At virologic failure, antiretroviral resistance mutations were more frequent in the NRTI-sparing group than in the other two groups. Virologic failure was less likely in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir–ritonavir group. The virologic efficacy of the NRTI-sparing regimen was similar to that of the efavirenz regimen but was more likely to be associated with drug resistance. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00050895.)Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Flying in the Face of Resistance: Antiviral-independent Benefit of HIV Protease Inhibitors on T-cell SurvivalClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2007
- A comparison of three highly active antiretroviral treatment strategies consisting of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, protease inhibitors, or both in the presence of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors as initial therapy (CPCRA 058 FIRST Study): a long-term randomised trialThe Lancet, 2006
- Treatment for Adult HIV InfectionJAMA, 2006
- Personalised social care for adults with disabilities: a problematic concept for frontline practiceHealth & Social Care in the Community, 2006
- Triple-Nucleoside Regimens versus Efavirenz-Containing Regimens for the Initial Treatment of HIV-1 InfectionNew England Journal of Medicine, 2004
- Long-term safety and durable antiretroviral activity of lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive patientsAIDS, 2004
- Incidence of Resistance in a Double‐Blind Study Comparing Lopinavir/Ritonavir Plus Stavudine and Lamivudine to Nelfinavir plus Stavudine and LamivudineThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2004
- Lopinavir–Ritonavir versus Nelfinavir for the Initial Treatment of HIV InfectionNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- Self-reported adherence to antiretroviral medications among participants in HIV clinical trials: The AACTG Adherence InstrumentsAIDS Care, 2000
- Efavirenz plus Zidovudine and Lamivudine, Efavirenz plus Indinavir, and Indinavir plus Zidovudine and Lamivudine in the Treatment of HIV-1 Infection in AdultsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1999