Efavirenz or nevirapine in three-drug combination therapy with two nucleoside-reverse transcriptase inhibitors for initial treatment of HIV infection in antiretroviral-naïve individuals

Antiretroviral Therapy-associated Adverse Drug Reactions and their Effects on Virologic Failure- A Retrospective Cohort Study in Nigeria

Background:

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with antiretroviral therapy (ART) can rapidly reverse the gains of ART resulting in poor health outcomes. We need an improved under-standing of specific ART-related ADRs that influence virologic outcomes.

Objective:

To investigate the frequency of clinical ADRs and assess their effect on virologic failure in patients on ART.

Method:

We described the prevalence of major clinical ADRs, and the association between specific ADRs and virologic failure in a clinic cohort of HIV-1 infected Nigerians aged ≥18 years, on first-line ART between June 2004 and February 2012. Multivariable logistic regression was run to identify predictors of virologic failure at 24 and 72 weeks of ART.

Results:

Data of 12,115 patients with a median age of 34 (interquartile range: 29-41) years, and pre-dominantly females (67%) were evaluated. Overall, 957 (7.9%) patients experienced at least one ADR during a median follow-up period of 4 years (interquartile range: 1-7). The three most prevalent ADRs were lipodystrophy (2.6%), anemia (1.9%), and skin rash (0.7%). Virologic failure rate was 36% and 34% at 24 and 72 weeks of ART, respectively. Anemia independently predicted the odds of virologic failure at 72 weeks of ART (adjusted odds ratio, 1.74; 95% CI: 1.2-2.51); adjusted for sex, age, pre-treatment CD4+ cell count, antiretroviral regimen, and medication refill adherence.

Conclusion:

Antiretroviral therapy-associated anemia increases the likelihood of late virologic failure. We recommend routine monitoring of hemoglobin levels and prompt management of anemia in all pa-tients on ART as a strategy to improve virologic success rates.

High resolution mass spectrometry-based methodologies for identification of Etravirine bioactivation to reactive metabolites: In vitro and in vivo approaches

Drug bioactivation to reactive metabolites capable of covalent adduct formation with bionucleophiles is a major cause of drug-induced adverse reactions. Therefore, elucidation of reactive metabolites is essential to unravel the toxicity mechanisms induced by drugs and thereby identify patient subgroups at higher risk. Etravirine (ETR) was the first second-generation Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (NNRTI) to be approved, as a therapeutic option for HIV-infected patients who developed resistance to the first-generation NNRTIs. Additionally, ETR came into market aiming to overcome some adverse effects associated with the previously used efavirenz (neurotoxicity) and nevirapine (hepatotoxicity) therapies. Nonetheless, post-marketing reports of severe ETR-induced skin rash and hypersensitivity reactions have prompted the U.S. FDA to issue a safety alert on ETR. Taking into consideration that ETR usage may increase in the near future, due to the possible use of the drug for coinfection with malaria and HIV, the development of reliable prognostic tools for early risk/benefit estimations is urgent. In the current study, high resolution mass spectrometry-based methodologies were integrated with MS³ experiments for the identification of reactive ETR metabolites/adducts: 1) in vitro incubation of the drug with human and rat liver S9 fractions in the presence of Phase I and II co-factors, including glutathione, as a trapping bionucleophile; and 2) in vivo, using urine samples from HIV-infected patients on ETR therapy. We obtained evidence for multiple bioactivation pathways leading to the formation of covalent adducts with glutathione and N-acetyl-L-cysteine. These results suggest that similar reactions may occur with cysteine residues of proteins, supporting a role for ETR bioactivation in the onset of the toxic effects elicited by the drug. Additionally, ETR metabolites stemming from amine oxidation, with potential toxicological significance, were identified in vitro and in vivo. Also noteworthy is the fact that new metabolic conjugation pathways of glucuronide metabolites were demonstrated for the first time, raising questions about their potential toxicological implications. In conclusion, these results represent not only a contribution towards the elucidation of new metabolic pathways of drugs in general but also an important step towards the elucidation of potentially toxic ETR pathways, whose understanding may be crucial for reliable risk/benefit estimations of ETR-based regimens.

Choice of initial antiretroviral drugs and treatment outcomes among HIV-infected patients in sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy (ART) depends on the choice of regimens during initiation. Most evidences from developed countries indicated that there is difference between efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP). However, the evidences are limited in resource poor countries particularly in Africa. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to summarize reported long-term treatment outcomes among people on first line therapy in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

Observational studies that reported odds ratio, relative risk, hazard ratio, or standardized incidence ratio to compare risk of treatment failure among HIV/AIDS patients who initiated ART with EFV versus NVP were systematically searched. Searches were conducted using the MEDLINE database within PubMed, Google Scholar, HINARI, and Research Gates between 2007 and 2016. Information was extracted using standardized form. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effect, generic inverse variance method.

RESULT

A total of 6394 articles were identified, of which, 29 were eligible for review and abstraction in sub-Saharan Africa. Seventeen articles were used for the meta-analysis. Of a total of 121,092 independent study participants, 76,719 (63.36%) were females. Of these, 40,480 (33.43%) initiated with NVP containing regimen. Two studies did not report the median CD4 cell counts at initiation. Patients who have low CD4 cell counts initiated with EFV containing regimen. The pooled effect size indicated that treatment failure was reduced by 15%, 0.85 (95%CI: 0.75-0.98), and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) switch was reduced by 43%, 0.57 (95%CI: 0.37-0.89).

CONCLUSION

The risk of treatment failure and NNRTI switch were lower in patients who initiated with EFV than NVP-containing regimen. The review suggests that initiation of patients with EFV-containing regimen will reduce treatment failure and NNRTI switch.

Potential of small-molecule fungal metabolites in antiviral chemotherapy

Various viral diseases, such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, influenza, and hepatitis, have emerged as leading causes of human death worldwide. Scientific endeavor since invention of DNA-dependent RNA polymerase of pox virus in 1967 resulted in better understanding of virus replication and development of various novel therapeutic strategies. Despite considerable advancement in every facet of drug discovery process, development of commercially viable, safe, and effective drugs for these viruses still remains a big challenge. Decades of intense research yielded a handful of natural and synthetic therapeutic options. But emergence of new viruses and drug-resistant viral strains had made new drug development process a never-ending battle. Small-molecule fungal metabolites due to their vast diversity, stereochemical complexity, and preapproved biocompatibility always remain an attractive source for new drug discovery. Though, exploration of therapeutic importance of fungal metabolites has started early with discovery of penicillin, recent prediction asserted that only a small percentage (5-10%) of fungal species have been identified and much less have been scientifically investigated. Therefore, exploration of new fungal metabolites, their bioassay, and subsequent mechanistic study bears huge importance in new drug discovery endeavors. Though no fungal metabolites so far approved for antiviral treatment, many of these exhibited high potential against various viral diseases. This review comprehensively discussed about antiviral activities of fungal metabolites of diverse origin against some important viral diseases. This also highlighted the mechanistic details of inhibition of viral replication along with structure-activity relationship of some common and important classes of fungal metabolites.

Virologic Response to First-line Efavirenz- or Nevirapine-based Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-infected African Children

BACKGROUND

Poorer virologic response to nevirapine- versus efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been reported in adult systematic reviews and pediatric studies.

METHODS

We compared drug discontinuation and viral load (VL) response in ART-naïve Ugandan/Zimbabwean children ≥3 years of age initiating ART with clinician-chosen nevirapine versus efavirenz in the ARROW trial. Predictors of suppression <80, <400 and <1000 copies/mL at 36, 48 and 144 weeks were identified using multivariable logistic regression with backwards elimination (P = 0.1).

RESULTS

A total of 445 (53%) children received efavirenz and 391 (47%) nevirapine. Children receiving efavirenz were older (median age, 8.6 vs. 7.5 years nevirapine, P < 0.001) and had higher CD4% (12% vs. 10%, P = 0.05), but similar pre-ART VL (P = 0.17). The initial non-nucleoside-reverse-transcriptase-inhibitor (NNRTI) was permanently discontinued for adverse events in 7 of 445 (2%) children initiating efavirenz versus 9 of 391 (2%) initiating nevirapine (P = 0.46); at switch to second line in 17 versus 23, for tuberculosis in 0 versus 26, for pregnancy in 6 versus 0 and for other reasons in 15 versus 5. Early (36-48 weeks) virologic suppression <80 copies/mL was superior with efavirenz, particularly in children with higher pre-ART VL (P = 0.0004); longer-term suppression was superior with nevirapine in older children (P = 0.05). Early suppression was poorer in the youngest and oldest children, regardless of NNRTI (P = 0.02); longer-term suppression was poorer in those with higher pre-ART VL regardless of NNRTI (P = 0.05). Results were broadly similar for <400 and <1000 copies/mL.

CONCLUSION

Short-term VL suppression favored efavirenz, but long-term relative performance was age dependent, with better suppression in older children with nevirapine, supporting World Health Organization recommendation that nevirapine remains an alternative NNRTI.

Micronutrient supplementation in adults with HIV infection

BACKGROUND

Micronutrient deficiencies are common among adults living with HIV disease, particularly in low-income settings where the diet may be low in essential vitamins and minerals. Some micronutrients play critical roles in maintenance of the immune system, and routine supplementation could therefore be beneficial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether micronutrient supplements are effective and safe in reducing mortality and HIV-related morbidity of HIV-positive adults (excluding pregnant women).

SEARCH METHODS

We performed literature searches from January 2010 to 18 November 2016 for new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of micronutrient supplements since the previous review included all trials identified from searches prior to 2010. We searched the CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), Embase, and PubMed databases. Also we checked the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and the ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers. We also checked the reference lists of all new included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared supplements that contained either single, dual, or multiple micronutrients with placebo, no treatment, or other supplements. We excluded studies that were primarily designed to investigate the role of micronutrients for the treatment of HIV-positive participants with metabolic morbidity related to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, morbidity, and disease progression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, and appraised trial quality for risk of bias. Where possible, we presented results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous variables, as hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event data, and as mean differences (MD) for continuous variables, each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Since we were often unable to pool the outcome data, we tabulated it for each comparison. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 trials with 10,325 participants, of which 17 trials were new trials. Ten trials compared a daily multiple micronutrient supplement to placebo in doses up to 20 times the dietary reference intake, and one trial compared a daily standard dose with a high daily dose of multivitamins. Nineteen trials compared supplementation with single or dual micronutrients (such as vitamins A and D, zinc, and selenium) to placebo, and three trials compared different dosages or combinations of micronutrients. Multiple micronutrientsWe conducted analyses across antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive adults (3 trials, 1448 participants), adults on antiretroviral therapy (ART) (1 trial, 400 participants), and ART-naive adults with concurrent active tuberculosis (3 trials, 1429 participants). Routine multiple micronutrient supplementation may have little or no effect on mortality in adults living with HIV (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.15; 7 trials, 2897 participants, low certainty evidence).Routine supplementation for up to two years may have little or no effect on the average of mean CD4+ cell count (MD 26.40 cells/mm³, 95% CI -22.91 to 75.70; 6 trials, 1581 participants, low certainty evidence), or the average of mean viral load (MD -0.1 log₁₀viral copies, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.06; 4 trials, 840 participants, moderate certainty evidence). One additional trial in ART-naïve adults did report an increase in the time to reach a CD4+ cell count < 250 cells/mm³ after two years of high dose supplementation in Botswana (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.88; 1 trial, 439 participants). However, the trial authors reported this effect only in the trial arm that received multiple micronutrients plus selenium (not either supplementation alone), which is inconsistent with the findings of other trials that used similar combinations of micronutrients and selenium.In one additional trial that compared high-dose multiple micronutrient supplementation with standard doses in people on ART, peripheral neuropathy was lower with high dose supplements compared to standard dose (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.7 to 0.94; 1 trial, 3418 participants), but the trial was stopped early due to increased adverse events (elevated alanine transaminase (ALT) levels) in the high dose group. Single or dual micronutrientsNone of the trials of single or dual micronutrient supplements were adequately powered to assess for effects on mortality or morbidity outcomes. No clinically significant changes in CD4 cell count (data not pooled, 14 trials, 2370 participants, very low or low certainty evidence) or viral load (data not pooled, seven studies, 1334 participants, very low or low certainty evidence), were reported. Supplementation probably does increase blood concentrations of vitamin D and zinc (data not pooled, vitamin D: 4 trials, 299 participants, zinc: 4 trials, 484 participants, moderate certainty evidence) and may also increase blood concentrations of vitamin A (data not pooled, 3 trials, 495 participants, low certainty evidence), especially in those who are deficient.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The analyses of the available trials have not revealed consistent clinically important benefits with routine multiple micronutrient supplementation in people living with HIV. Larger trials might reveal small but important effects.These findings should not be interpreted as a reason to deny micronutrient supplements for people living with HIV where specific deficiencies are found or where the person's diet is insufficient to meet the recommended daily allowance of vitamins and minerals.

Efavirenz or nevirapine in three-drug combination therapy with two nucleoside or nucleotide-reverse transcriptase inhibitors for initial treatment of HIV infection in antiretroviral-naïve individuals

BACKGROUND

The advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (ART) has reduced the morbidity and mortality due to HIV infection. The World Health Organization (WHO) ART guidelines focus on three classes of antiretroviral drugs, namely nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) and protease inhibitors. Two of the most common medications given as first-line treatment are the NNRTIs, efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP). It is unclear which NNRTI is more efficacious for initial therapy. This systematic review was first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, either EFV or NVP, is more effective in suppressing viral load when given in combination with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors as part of initial antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We attempted to identify all relevant studies, regardless of language or publication status, in electronic databases and conference proceedings up to 12 August 2016. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to 12 August 2016. We searched LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) and the Web of Science from 1996 to 12 August 2016. We checked the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Gateway from 1996 to 2009, as it was no longer available after 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EFV to NVP in people with HIV without prior exposure to ART, irrespective of the dosage or NRTI's given in combination.The primary outcome of interest was virological success. Other primary outcomes included mortality, clinical progression to AIDS, severe adverse events, and discontinuation of therapy for any reason. Secondary outcomes were change in CD4 count, treatment failure, development of ART drug resistance, and prevention of sexual transmission of HIV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed each reference for inclusion using exclusion criteria that we had established a priori. Two review authors independently extracted data from each included trial using a standardized data extraction form. We analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis. We performed subgroup analyses for concurrent treatment for tuberculosis and dosage of NVP. We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve RCTs, which included 3278 participants, met our inclusion criteria. None of these trials included children. The length of follow-up time, study settings, and NRTI combination drugs varied greatly. In five included trials, participants were receiving concurrent treatment for tuberculosis.There was little or no difference between EFV and NVP in virological success (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.09; 10 trials, 2438 participants; high quality evidence), probably little or no difference in mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.19; 8 trials, 2317 participants; moderate quality evidence) and progression to AIDS (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.11; 5 trials, 2005 participants; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in all severe adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 8 trials, 2329 participants; very low quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference in discontinuation rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.25; 9 trials, 2384 participants; moderate quality evidence) and change in CD4 count (MD -3.03; 95% CI -17.41 to 11.35; 9 trials, 1829 participants; moderate quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in treatment failure (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.24; 5 trials, 737 participants; low quality evidence). Development of drug resistance is probably slightly less in the EFV arms (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; 4 trials, 988 participants; moderate quality evidence). No studies were found that looked at sexual transmission of HIV.When we examined the adverse events individually, EFV probably is associated with more people with impaired mental function (7 per 1000) compared to NVP (2 per 1000; RR 4.46, 95% CI 1.65 to 12.03; 6 trials, 2049 participants; moderate quality evidence) but fewer people with elevated transaminases (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.78; 3 trials, 1299 participants; high quality evidence), fewer people with neutropenia (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; 3 trials, 1799 participants; high quality evidence), and probably fewer people withrash (229 per 100 with NVP versus 133 per 1000 with EFV; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.00; 7 trials, 2277 participants; moderate quality evidence). We found that there may be little or no difference in gastrointestinal adverse events (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.21; 6 trials, 2049 participants; low quality evidence), pyrexia (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.73; 3 trials, 1799 participants; low quality evidence), raised alkaline phosphatase (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.50; 1 trial, 1007 participants; low quality evidence), raised amylase (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.73; 2 trials, 1071 participants; low quality evidence) and raised triglycerides (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.13; 2 trials, 1071 participants; low quality evidence). There was probably little or no difference in serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT; MD 3.3, 95% CI -2.06 to 8.66; 1 trial, 135 participants; moderate quality evidence), serum glutamic- pyruvic transaminase (SGPT; MD 5.7, 95% CI -4.23 to 15.63; 1 trial, 135 participants; moderate quality evidence) and raised cholesterol (RR 6.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 48.78; 1 trial, 64 participants; moderate quality evidence).Our subgroup analyses revealed that NVP slightly increases mortality when given once daily (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.90; 3 trials, 678 participants; high quality evidence). There were little or no differences in the primary outcomes for patients who were concurrently receiving treatment for tuberculosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both drugs have similar benefits in initial treatment of HIV infection when combined with two NRTIs. The adverse events encountered affect different systems, with EFV more likely to cause central nervous system adverse events and NVP more likely to raise transaminases, cause neutropenia and rash.

Treatment Outcomes of Nevirapine- Versus Efavirenz-Based Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Regimens Among Antiretroviral-Naive Adult Patients in Ethiopia: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Despite wide use of nevirapine- and efavirenz-based highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens in Ethiopia, their treatment outcome has not been well studied. The objective of this study was to compare treatment outcome of nevirapine- and efavirenz-based regimens.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted on antiretroviral-naive adult patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who had started antiretroviral therapy. Study participants were excluded after treatment failure, regimen change, loss to follow-up, or transfer to other health facility. The outcomes of interest included immunologic recovery, immunologic failure, clinical failure, and treatment failure.

RESULTS

There were 1064 HIV patients in the study; an equal proportion (1:1) from both efavirenz- and nevirapine-based regimens was included. Patients in both regimens had similar baseline CD4 cells count ( P = .876). In multivariate analysis, efavirenz-based regimens showed more likelihood of immunologic recovery, whether defined as a CD4 cell count of >200 cells/mm³ (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.31 [95% CI, 1.05-1.59]), >350 cells/mm³ (HR = 1.26 [95% CI, 1.08-1.47]), or >500 cells/mm³ (HR = 1.95 [95% CI, 1.57-2.41]). Moreover, efavirenz-based regimens showed a lower hazard of treatment failure (HR = 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49-0.88]).

CONCLUSION

Although the finding of retrospective study should be interpreted with caution, efavirenz-based regimens were associated with superior treatment outcome.

Efavirenz-Based Regimens in Antiretroviral-Naive HIV-Infected Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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.

Trends in first-line antiretroviral therapy in Asia: results from the TREAT Asia HIV observational database

Background

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) has evolved rapidly since its beginnings. This analysis describes trends in first-line ART use in Asia and their impact on treatment outcomes.

Methods

Patients in the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database receiving first-line ART for ≥6 months were included. Predictors of treatment failure and treatment modification were assessed.

Results

Data from 4662 eligible patients was analysed. Patients started ART in 2003–2006 (n = 1419), 2007–2010 (n = 2690) and 2011–2013 (n = 553). During the observation period, tenofovir, zidovudine and abacavir use largely replaced stavudine. Stavudine was prescribed to 5.8% of ART starters in 2012/13. Efavirenz use increased at the expense of nevirapine, although both continue to be used extensively (47.5% and 34.5% of patients in 2012/13, respectively). Protease inhibitor use dropped after 2004. The rate of treatment failure or modification declined over time (22.1 [95%CI 20.7–23.5] events per 100 patient/years in 2003–2006, 15.8 [14.9–16.8] in 2007–2010, and 11.6 [9.4–14.2] in 2011–2013). Adjustment for ART regimen had little impact on the temporal decline in treatment failure rates but substantially attenuated the temporal decline in rates of modification due to adverse event. In the final multivariate model, treatment modification due to adverse event was significantly predicted by earlier period of ART initiation (hazard ratio 0.52 [95%CI 0.33–0.81], p = 0.004 for 2011–2013 versus 2003–2006), older age (1.56 [1.19–2.04], p = 0.001 for ≥50 years versus <30years), female sex (1.29 [1.11–1.50], p = 0.001 versus male), positive hepatitis C status (1.33 [1.06–1.66], p = 0.013 versus negative), and ART regimen (11.36 [6.28–20.54], p<0.001 for stavudine-based regimens versus tenofovir-based).

Conclusions

The observed trends in first-line ART use in Asia reflect changes in drug availability, global treatment recommendations and prescriber preferences over the past decade. These changes have contributed to a declining rate of treatment modification due to adverse event, but not to reductions in treatment failure.

Efficacy of initial antiretroviral therapy for HIV-1 infection in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 114 studies with up to 144 weeks' follow-up

BACKGROUND

A comprehensive assessment of initial HIV-1 treatment success may inform study design and treatment guidelines.

METHODS

Group-based, systematic review and meta-analysis of initial antiretroviral therapy studies, in adults, of ≥ 48 weeks duration, reported through December 31, 2012. Size-weighted, intention-to-treat efficacy was calculated. Parameters of study design/eligibility, participant and treatment characteristics were abstracted. Multivariable, random effects, linear regression models with backwards, stepwise selection were then used to identify variables associated with efficacy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Antiviral efficacy (undetectable plasma viral load) and premature cessation of therapy.

RESULTS

114 studies were included (216 treatment groups; 40,124 participants; mean CD4 count 248 cells/µL [SD 81]; mean HIV-1 plasma viral load log10 4.9 [SD 0.2]). Mean efficacy across all groups was 60% (SD 16) over a mean 82 weeks' follow-up (SD 38). Efficacy declined over time: 66% (SD 16) at 48 weeks, 60% (SD 16) at 96 weeks, 52% (SD 18) at 144 weeks. The most common reason for treatment cessation was participant decision (11%, SD 6.6). Efficacy was higher with 'Preferred' than 'Alternative' regimens (as defined by 2013 United States antiretroviral guidelines): 75% vs. 65%, respectively, difference 10%; 95%CI 7.6 to 15.4; p<0.001. In 98 groups (45%) reporting efficacy stratified by pre-treatment viral load (< or ≥100,000 copies/mL), efficacy was greater for the lower stratum (70% vs. 62%, respectively, difference 8.4%; 95%CI 6.0 to 10.9; p<0.001). This difference persisted within 'Preferred' regimens. Greatest efficacy was associated with use of tenofovir-emtricitabine (vs. other nucleoside analogue backbones) and integrase strand transfer inhibitors (vs. other third drug classes).

CONCLUSION

Initial antiretroviral treatments for HIV-1 to date appear to have suboptimal long-term efficacy, but are more effective when commenced at plasma viral loads <100,000 copies/mL. Rising viral load should be considered an indication for starting treatment. Integrase inhibitors offer a treatment advantage (vs. other third drug classes).

Antiretroviral treatment in HIV-1 infected pediatric patients: focus on efavirenz

Efavirenz is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), used for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 infection. Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1998, its indication was recently extended to include children as young as 3 months of age. The World Health Organization and many national guidelines consider efavirenz to be the preferred NNRTI for first-line treatment of children over the age of 3 years. Clinical outcomes of patients on three-drug antiretroviral regimens which include efavirenz are as good as or better than those for patients on all other currently approved HIV medications. Efavirenz is dosed once daily and has pediatric-friendly formulations. It is usually well tolerated, with central nervous system side effects being of greatest concern. Efavirenz increases the risk of neural tube defects in nonhuman primates and therefore its use during the first trimester of pregnancy is limited in some settings. With minimal interactions with antituberculous drugs, efavirenz is preferred for use among patients with HIV/tuberculosis coinfection. Efavirenz can be rendered inactive by a single point mutation in the reverse transcriptase enzyme. Newer NNRTI drugs such as etravirine, not yet approved for use in children under the age of 6 years, may maintain their activity following development of efavirenz resistance. This review highlights key points from the existing literature regarding the use of efavirenz in children and suggests directions for future investigation.

Nevirapine versus efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV and tuberculosis infections in India: a pilot study

Background

Administration of rifampicin along with nevirapine reduces the plasma concentration of nevirapine in human immunodeficiency virus positive individuals with concomitant tuberculosis (HIV-TB patients). Nevirapine is a much cheaper drug than its alternative efavirenz, and might be beneficial in resource constrained settings.

Methods

A randomised open label trial was conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. During the regimen of an antiretroviral therapy (ART), naive HIV-TB patients were randomly assigned to receive either nevirapine or efavirenz based ART with concomitant rifampicin based anti-tubercular therapy (ATT). Participants were followed for 24 months after starting ART. The end points were virological, immunological and clinical responses, and progression of HIV disease marked by failure of ART.

Results

Of the 135 HIV-TB patients, who were receiving rifampicin based ATT, 68 were selected randomly to receive efavirenz based ART and 67 to receive nevirapine based ART. The virological failure rates in the overall population, and the nevirapine and efavirenz groups were 14.1% (19/135); 14.9% (10/67) and 13.2% (9/68), respectively (p = 0.94). No significant difference was found between the groups in the rate of clinical, immunological or virological failures. The overall mortality was 17% with no significant difference between the two groups. Except for the lead in period on day 14, the mean nevirapine concentration remained above 3 mg/L. No association was found between plasma levels of nevirapine and incidence of unfavourable outcomes in this group.

Conclusions

Outcome of ART in HIV-TB patients on rifampicin based ATT showed no significant difference, irrespective of whether efavirenz or nevirapine was used. Therefore, nevirapine based ART could be an alternative in the resource limited settings in patients with HIV and tuberculosis co-infection.

Trial registration

NCT No. 01805258.

Nevirapine-based regimens in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Nevirapine belongs to the group of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and is commonly administered in first-line treatment of HIV infection.

Objective

Systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to compare effectiveness of nevirapine-based regimens with other antiretroviral schedules used as an initial treatment of HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive subjects.

Methods

Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Trip Database) were searched up to 28 December 2012 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published as a full text and regarding nevirapine-based regimens used as a initial treatment for HIV infection. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan^® V 5.2 software.

Results

Twelve RCTs were included in the systematic review and all of them were suitable for meta-analysis. Results of the meta-analysis have shown that nevirapine, efavirenz, and ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor, added to the background regimens, were equally effective in terms of reaching undetectable plasma HIV RNA level as well as risk of disease progression or death. Compared with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based regimens, nevirapine-based regimens statistically significantly increased the risk of discontinuation of assigned treatment (RR=3.10; 95% CI: 1.14-8.41; p<0.05).

Conclusions

Despite limited RCTs data available for particular comparisons, our results suggest that nevirapine-based regimens may be considered for first-line treatment of HIV-infected adults, due to their comparable efficacy to the other currently recommended initial antiretroviral therapies.

Association between efavirenz-based compared with nevirapine-based antiretroviral regimens and virological failure in HIV-infected children

IMPORTANCE

Worldwide, 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.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether virological failure is more likely among children who initiated 1 or the other NNRTI-based HIV treatment.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective 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 MEASURES

The 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.

RESULTS

With 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 RELEVANCE

Among 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.

Virologic, immunologic and clinical response of infants to antiretroviral therapy in Kampala, Uganda

Background

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is known to save lives. Among HIV-infected infants living in resource constrained settings, the short and long term benefits of ART are only partially known. This study was designed to determine the virologic, immunologic and clinical outcomes of antiretroviral therapy in a cohort of HIV-infected infants receiving care from an outpatient clinic in Kampala, Uganda.

Methods

A prospective cohort of HIV-infected infants receiving treatment at the Baylor-Uganda clinic was analyzed. Patients were diagnosed, enrolled and followed up at the clinic. HIV viral load, CD4 cell counts and clinical progress were assessed during follow-up. Descriptive statistical analysis and logistic regression modeling to determine predictors of treatment success were conducted.

Results

Of 91 HIV-infected infants enrolled into the cohort, 53 (58.2%) infants were female; 43 (47.3%) were 6 months of age or younger, and 50 (55.6%) had advanced HIV/AIDS disease (Clinical stage 3 or 4). Eighty four infants started ART and 78 (92.9%) completed 6 months of treatments. Fifty six (71.8%) infants attained virologic suppression by month-6 of ART, and at month-12 of ART, the cumulative probability of attaining viral suppression was 83.1%. None of the baseline infant factors (age, sex, WHO stage, CD4 cell percent, weight for age, or height for age z-score) predicted treatment success. There was an increase in CD4 cells from a baseline mean of 23% to 30% at month-6 of treatment (p<0.001) and by month-24 of ART, the mean CD4 percent was 36%. A total of 7 patients died while on ART and another 7 experienced adverse events that were related to treatment.

Conclusion

Our results show that, even among very young patients from resource constrained settings, ART dramatically suppresses HIV replication, allows immune recovery and clinical improvement, and is safe. However, baseline characteristics do not predict recovery in this age group.

Nevirapine versus efavirenz for patients co-infected with HIV and tuberculosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

In countries with a high incidence of HIV and tuberculosis co-infection, nevirapine and efavirenz are widely used as antiretroviral therapy but both interact with antituberculosis drugs. We aimed to compare efficacy and safety of a nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (started at full dose) with an efavirenz-based regimen in co-infected patients.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial at three health centres in Maputo, Mozambique. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) with tuberculosis and previously untreated HIV infection (CD4 cell counts <250 cells per μL) and alanine aminotransferase and total bilirubin concentrations of less than five times the upper limit of normal. 4-6 weeks after the start of tuberculosis treatment, we randomly allocated patients (1:1) with central randomisation, block sizes of two to six, and stratified by site and CD4 cell count to nevirapine (200 mg twice daily) or efavirenz (600 mg once daily), plus lamivudine and stavudine. The primary endpoint was virological suppression at 48 weeks (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (intention-to-treat population); death and loss to follow-up were recorded as treatment failure. The non-inferiority margin for the difference of efficacy was 10%. We assessed efficacy in intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations and safety in all patients who received study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00495326.

FINDINGS

Between October, 2007, and March, 2010, we enrolled 285 patients into each group. 242 (85%) patients in the nevirapine group and 233 (82%) patients in the efavirenz group completed follow-up. In the intention-to-treat population, 184 patients (64·6%, 95% CI 58·7-70·1) allocated nevirapine achieved virological suppression at week 48, as did 199 patients (69·8%, 64·1-75·1) allocated efavirenz (one-sided 95% CI of the difference of efficacy 11·7%). In the per-protocol population, 170 (70·0%, 63·8-75·7) of 243 patients allocated nevirapine achieved virological suppression at week 48, as did 194 (78·9%, 73·2-83·8) of 246 patients allocated efavirenz (one-sided 95% CI 15·4%). The median CD4 cell count at randomisation was 89 cells per μL. 15 patients substituted nevirapine with efavirenz and six patients substituted efavirenz with nevirapine. 20 patients allocated nevirapine (7%) had grade 3-4 increase of alanine aminotransferase compared with 17 patients allocated efavirenz (6%). Three patients had severe rash after receipt of nevirapine (1%) but no patients did after receipt of efavirenz. 18 patients in the nevirapine group died, as did 17 patients in the efavirenz group.

INTERPRETATION

Although non-inferiority of the nevirapine-regimen was not shown, nevirapine at full dose could be a safe, acceptable alternative for patients unable to tolerate efavirenz.

FUNDING

French Research Agency for HIV/AIDS and hepatitis (ANRS).

The effect of efavirenz versus nevirapine-containing regimens on immunologic, virologic and clinical outcomes in a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

To compare regimens consisting of either efavirenz or nevirapine and two or more nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) among HIV-infected, antiretroviral-naive, and AIDS-free individuals with respect to clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes.

DESIGN

Prospective studies of HIV-infected individuals in Europe and the US included in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration.

METHODS

Antiretroviral therapy-naive and AIDS-free individuals were followed from the time they started an NRTI, efavirenz or nevirapine, classified as following one or both types of regimens at baseline, and censored when they started an ineligible drug or at 6 months if their regimen was not yet complete. We estimated the 'intention-to-treat' effect for nevirapine versus efavirenz regimens on clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes. Our models included baseline covariates and adjusted for potential bias introduced by censoring via inverse probability weighting.

RESULTS

A total of 15 336 individuals initiated an efavirenz regimen (274 deaths, 774 AIDS-defining illnesses) and 8129 individuals initiated a nevirapine regimen (203 deaths, 441 AIDS-defining illnesses). The intention-to-treat hazard ratios [95% confidence interval (CI)] for nevirapine versus efavirenz regimens were 1.59 (1.27, 1.98) for death and 1.28 (1.09, 1.50) for AIDS-defining illness. Individuals on nevirapine regimens experienced a smaller 12-month increase in CD4 cell count by 11.49 cells/μl and were 52% more likely to have virologic failure at 12 months as those on efavirenz regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Our intention-to-treat estimates are consistent with a lower mortality, a lower incidence of AIDS-defining illness, a larger 12-month increase in CD4 cell count, and a smaller risk of virologic failure at 12 months for efavirenz compared with nevirapine.

A clinician-nurse model to reduce early mortality and increase clinic retention among high-risk HIV-infected patients initiating combination antiretroviral treatment

BACKGROUND

In resource-poor settings, mortality is at its highest during the first 3 months after combination antiretroviral treatment (cART) initiation. A clear predictor of mortality during this period is having a low CD4 count at the time of treatment initiation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect on survival and clinic retention of a nurse-based rapid assessment clinic for high-risk individuals initiating cART in a resource-constrained setting.

METHODS

The USAID-AMPATH Partnership has enrolled more than 140,000 patients at 25 clinics throughout western Kenya. High Risk Express Care (HREC) provides weekly or bi-weekly rapid contacts with nurses for individuals initiating cART with CD4 counts of ≤100 cells/mm3. All HIV-infected individuals aged 14 years or older initiating cART with CD4 counts of ≤100 cells/mm3 were eligible for enrolment into HREC and for analysis. Adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) control for potential confounding using propensity score methods.

RESULTS

Between March 2007 and March 2009, 4,958 patients initiated cART with CD4 counts of ≤100 cells/mm3. After adjusting for age, sex, CD4 count, use of cotrimoxazole, treatment for tuberculosis, travel time to clinic and type of clinic, individuals in HREC had reduced mortality (AHR: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.45-0.77), and reduced loss to follow up (AHR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.55-0.70) compared with individuals in routine care. Overall, patients in HREC were much more likely to be alive and in care after a median of nearly 11 months of follow up (AHR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.57-0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Frequent monitoring by dedicated nurses in the early months of cART can significantly reduce mortality and loss to follow up among high-risk patients initiating treatment in resource-constrained settings.

Poorer ART outcomes with increasing age at a large public sector HIV clinic in Johannesburg, South Africa

BACKGROUND

As the current HIV-positive population ages, the absolute number of patients >50 years on treatment is increasing.

METHODS

We analyze the differences in treatment outcomes by age category (18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and ≥ 60) among 9139 HIV-positive adults initiating ART in South Africa.

RESULTS

The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality increased with increasing age, with the strongest association in the first 12 months of follow-up among patients 50 to 59 years (HR 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24-2.23) versus those <30 years. However, patients 50 to 59 years were less likely to be lost during 24 months on antiretroviral therapy ([ART] HR 0.75; 95% CI: 0.59-0.94) versus patients <30 years. By 6 and 12 months on treatment, older patients were less likely to increase their CD4 count by ≥ 50 cells/mm(3).

CONCLUSION

Although older patients are at higher risk of mortality and have poorer immunological responses than their younger counterparts, they are more likely to adhere to care and treatment in the first 24 months on ART.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with tenofovir and emtricitabine in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (ECHO): a phase 3 randomised double-blind active-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Efavirenz with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine is a preferred antiretroviral regimen for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Rilpivirine, a new non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, has shown similar antiviral efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial with two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rilpivirine versus efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine.

METHODS

We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial, in patients infected with HIV-1 who were treatment-naive. The patients were aged 18 years or older with a plasma viral load at screening of 5000 copies per mL or greater, and viral sensitivity to all study drugs. Our trial was done at 112 sites across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated interactive web response system to receive either once-daily 25 mg rilpivirine or once-daily 600 mg efavirenz, each with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority (12% margin) of rilpivirine to efavirenz in terms of the percentage of patients with confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL intention-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response [ITT-TLOVR] algorithm) at week 48. Our primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. We also used logistic regression to adjust for baseline viral load. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00540449.

FINDINGS

346 patients were randomly assigned to receive rilpivirine and 344 to receive efavirenz and received at least one dose of study drug, with 287 (83%) and 285 (83%) in the respective groups having a confirmed response at week 48. The point estimate from a logistic regression model for the percentage difference in response was -0.4 (95% CI -5.9 to 5.2), confirming non-inferiority with a 12% margin (primary endpoint). The incidence of virological failures was 13% (rilpivirine) versus 6% (efavirenz; 11%vs 4% by ITT-TLOVR). Grade 2-4 adverse events (55 [16%] on rilpivirine vs 108 [31%] on efavirenz, p<0.0001), discontinuations due to adverse events (eight [2%] on rilpivirine vs 27 [8%] on efavirenz), rash, dizziness, and abnormal dreams or nightmares were more common with efavirenz. Increases in plasma lipids were significantly lower with rilpivirine.

INTERPRETATION

Rilpivirine showed non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz, with a higher virological-failure rate, but a more favourable safety and tolerability profile.

FUNDING

Tibotec.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs).

METHODS

We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543725.

FINDINGS

From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3.5% [95% CI -1.7 to 8.8]; p(non-inferiority)<0.0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2-4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% [54 patients]) than they were with efavirenz (31% [104]; p<0.0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0.0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0.0001).

INTERPRETATION

Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1.

FUNDING

Tibotec.