Tenofovir DF/emtricitabine and efavirenz combination therapy for HIV infection in patients treated for tuberculosis: the ANRS 129 BKVIR trial

BACKGROUND

HIV-infected patients with TB need simplified, effective and well-tolerated antiretroviral regimens.

METHODS

The French ANRS 129 BKVIR open trial evaluated the once-daily tenofovir DF/emtricitabine and efavirenz combination, started within 12 weeks after TB treatment initiation, in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients. Success was defined as an HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL and TB cure at 48 weeks.

RESULTS

TB was confirmed microbiologically (90%) or histologically (10%) in 69 patients (71% male; median age 43 years; 54% born in Africa). The median time between TB treatment initiation and antiretroviral therapy was 8 weeks (range 1-22 weeks). At baseline, median HIV-1 RNA was 5.4 log10 copies/mL and median CD4 cell count 74 cells/mm(3). In the ITT analysis, combined success at week 48 was achieved in 57/69 patients (83%, 95% CI 74-92). Twelve patients did not achieve virological success, and TB was not cured in one of them. Among the 47 patients who fully adhered to the strategy, the success rate was 96% (95% CI 90-100) and was not affected by low rifampicin and isoniazid serum concentrations. Forty-nine serious adverse events were reported in 31 patients (45%), and 11 led to antiretroviral drug interruption. All adverse events resolved. The immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome occurred in 23 patients (33%, 95% CI 22-44), and was associated with a low baseline BMI (P = 0.03) and a low haemoglobin level (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

These results support the use of tenofovir DF/emtricitabine and efavirenz combination therapy for HIV infection in patients with TB.

Pharmacological interactions between rifampicin and antiretroviral drugs: challenges and research priorities for resource-limited settings

Coadministration of antituberculosis and antiretroviral therapy is often inevitable in high-burden countries where tuberculosis (TB) is the most common opportunistic infection associated with HIV/AIDS. Concurrent use of rifampicin and many antiretroviral drugs is complicated by pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. Rifampicin is a very potent enzyme inducer, which can result in subtherapeutic antiretroviral drug concentrations. In addition, TB drugs and antiretroviral drugs have additive (pharmacodynamic) interactions as reflected in overlapping adverse effect profiles. This review provides an overview of the pharmacological interactions between rifampicin-based TB treatment and antiretroviral drugs in adults living in resource-limited settings. Major progress has been made to evaluate the interactions between TB drugs and antiretroviral therapy; however, burning questions remain concerning nevirapine and efavirenz effectiveness during rifampicin-based TB treatment, treatment options for TB-HIV-coinfected patients with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance or intolerance, and exact treatment or dosing schedules for vulnerable patients including children and pregnant women. The current research priorities can be addressed by maximizing the use of already existing data, creating new data by conducting clinical trials and prospective observational studies and to engage a lobby to make currently unavailable drugs available to those most in need.

Outcomes for efavirenz versus nevirapine-containing regimens for treatment of HIV-1 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is conflicting evidence and practice regarding the use of the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP) in first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART).

METHODS

We systematically reviewed virological outcomes in HIV-1 infected, treatment-naive patients on regimens containing EFV versus NVP from randomised trials and observational cohort studies. Data sources include PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and conference proceedings of the International AIDS Society, Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, between 1996 to May 2013. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic, and subgroup analyses performed to assess the potential influence of study design, duration of follow up, location, and tuberculosis treatment. Sensitivity analyses explored the potential influence of different dosages of NVP and different viral load thresholds.

RESULTS

Of 5011 citations retrieved, 38 reports of studies comprising 114 391 patients were included for review. EFV was significantly less likely than NVP to lead to virologic failure in both trials (RR 0.85 [0.73-0.99] I(2) = 0%) and observational studies (RR 0.65 [0.59-0.71] I(2) = 54%). EFV was more likely to achieve virologic success than NVP, though marginally significant, in both randomised controlled trials (RR 1.04 [1.00-1.08] I(2) = 0%) and observational studies (RR 1.06 [1.00-1.12] I(2) = 68%).

CONCLUSION

EFV-based first line ART is significantly less likely to lead to virologic failure compared to NVP-based ART. This finding supports the use of EFV as the preferred NNRTI in first-line treatment regimen for HIV treatment, particularly in resource limited settings.