Virological suppression at 6 months is related to choice of initial regimen in antiretroviral-naive patients: a cohort study
- 1 January 2002
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in AIDS
- Vol. 16 (1) , 53-61
- https://doi.org/10.1097/00002030-200201040-00008
Abstract
Guidelines recommend both protease inhibitor (PI)- and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-containing regimens for initial therapy in HIV-positive individuals whilst clinical trial data comparing treatment options remain limited. To assess whether drug selection (PI versus NNRTI) in antiretroviral-naive patients is related to virological response at 6 months within a clinical cohort. Databases from two large clinics were used to identify all treatment-naive patients initiating highly active antiretroviral therapy (PI/ two PI or NNRTI). Statistical models determined the likelihood of suppressing HIV viral load < 500 copies/ml, the risk of treatment failure by 6 months, and factors associated with treatment success. Of 1109 potentially eligible patients 888 met study criteria and were included; 484 were prescribed a PI (40% indinavir, 41% nelfinavir) and 404 were prescribed NNRTI (40% efavirenz, 60% nevirapine). Three treatment arms were compared: efavirenz versus nevirapine versus PI. After stratification by year and centre and adjustment for baseline variables, only treatment group and baseline viral load remained significantly associated with virological suppression at 6 months. Patients on efavirenz were significantly more likely to achieve an undetectable viral load than those on PI or nevirapine. The relative hazard for nevirapine was 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.61–0.96, P = 0.02) and that for PI was 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.58–0.94, P = 0.01). Efavirenz also performed better in the analysis of treatment failure at 6 months. Although observational cohort data may be susceptible to significant bias, this study suggests a better initial virological response for efavirenz compared to either nevirapine or the PI. Clinical trial data is required to confirm these findings.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- AVANTI 2. Randomized, double-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zidovudine plus lamivudine versus zidovudine plus lamivudine plus indinavir in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive patientsAIDS, 2000
- Antiretroviral Therapy in AdultsJAMA, 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
- Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and fluconazole enhance anti-cryptococcal activity of monocytes from AIDS patientsAIDS, 1999
- Changing patterns of mortality across Europe in patients infected with HIV-1The Lancet, 1998
- 1998 revision to the British HIV Association guidelines for antiretroviral treatment of HIV seropositive individualsThe Lancet, 1998
- Declining Morbidity and Mortality among Patients with Advanced Human Immunodeficiency Virus InfectionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1998
- A Randomized, Double-blind Trial Comparing Combinations of Nevirapine, Didanosine, and Zidovudine for HIV-Infected PatientsJAMA, 1998
- Treatment with Indinavir, Zidovudine, and Lamivudine in Adults with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Prior Antiretroviral TherapyNew England Journal of Medicine, 1997
- A Controlled Trial of Two Nucleoside Analogues plus Indinavir in Persons with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and CD4 Cell Counts of 200 per Cubic Millimeter or LessNew England Journal of Medicine, 1997