Abacavir–Lamivudine versus Tenofovir–Emtricitabine for Initial HIV-1 Therapy
Top Cited Papers
- 3 December 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 361 (23) , 2230-2240
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0906768
Abstract
The use of fixed-dose combination nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) with a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor is recommended as initial therapy in patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but which NRTI combination has greater efficacy and safety is not known. In a randomized, blinded equivalence study involving 1858 eligible patients, we compared four once-daily antiretroviral regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection: abacavir–lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF)–emtricitabine plus efavirenz or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir. The primary efficacy end point was the time from randomization to virologic failure (defined as a confirmed HIV-1 RNA level ≥1000 copies per milliliter at or after 16 weeks and before 24 weeks, or ≥200 copies per milliliter at or after 24 weeks). A scheduled interim review by an independent data and safety monitoring board showed significant differences in virologic efficacy, according to the NRTI combination, among patients with screening HIV-1 RNA levels of 100,000 copies per milliliter or more. At a median follow-up of 60 weeks, among the 797 patients with screening HIV-1 RNA levels of 100,000 copies per milliliter or more, the time to virologic failure was significantly shorter in the abacavir–lamivudine group than in the tenofovir DF–emtricitabine group (hazard ratio, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.46 to 3.72; P<0.001), with 57 virologic failures (14%) in the abacavir–lamivudine group versus 26 (7%) in the tenofovir DF–emtricitabine group. The time to the first adverse event was also shorter in the abacavir–lamivudine group (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the study groups in the change from the baseline CD4 cell count at week 48. In patients with screening HIV-1 RNA levels of 100,000 copies per milliliter or more, the times to virologic failure and the first adverse event were both significantly shorter in patients randomly assigned to abacavir–lamivudine than in those assigned to tenofovir DF–emtricitabine. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00118898.)This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- Baseline HIV‐1 RNA Level and CD4 Cell Count Predict Time to Loss of Virologic Response to Nelfinavir, but Not Lopinavir/Ritonavir, in Antiretroviral Therapy–Naive PatientsThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2004
- Efficacy and Safety of Tenofovir DF vs Stavudine in Combination Therapy in Antiretroviral-Naive PatientsA 3-Year Randomized TrialJAMA, 2004
- Bid, but Not Bax, Regulates VDAC ChannelsJournal of Biological Chemistry, 2004
- Genetics of essential hypertensionHuman Molecular Genetics, 2004
- Hormonal and Nutritional Regulation of Adipose Tissue Mitochondrial Development and Function in the NewbornExperimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes, 2004
- Prospective Randomized Trial of Emtricitabine versus Lamivudine Short‐Term Monotherapy in Human Immunodeficiency Virus–Infected PatientsThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2003
- Broad Nucleoside Reverse‐Transcriptase Inhibitor Cross‐Resistance in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Clinical IsolatesThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2003
- Maternal component in the familial aggregation of hypertensionClinical Genetics, 2001
- The mitochondrial permeability transition pore may comprise VDAC moleculesFEBS Letters, 1993
- Familial aggregation of arterial blood pressure and possible genetic influence.Hypertension, 1992