Efavirenz Arm Research Articles

Changes in Patient-reported Neuropsychiatric Outcomes during the SENSE Trial: First-line Treatment with Two Nucleoside Analogues plus Etravirine or Efavirenz

BackgroundEfavirenz treatment has been associated with an increased risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events, some of which may last for only the first few weeks of treatment. MethodsIn this double-blind placebo-controlled trial, 157 treatment-naïve patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA >5000 copies/mL, were randomized 1:1 to either etravirine 400 mg once daily (n=79), or efavirenz 600 mg once daily (n=78), plus 2 nucleoside analogues. At screening, baseline, and during the trial, subjects completed the HIV-Patient Symptoms Profile (HPSP) questionnaire on the impact of adverse events associated with their treatment. There were 14 symptom domains, with 5 classified as neuropsychiatric and 9 other domains. The mean scores of each domain were compared between the arms at the Week 2 and Week 48 visits. ResultsThe treatment arms were comparable at baseline (overall median CD4 count 302 cells/uL, median HIV RNA 4.8 log10 copies/mL). In the analysis of the HPSP questionnaire, the mean score for the domains of dizziness and sleep of the etravirine arm was significantly better than the efavirenz arm at Week 2. There were no significant differences between the arms at Week 48, for any of the domains. At the baseline visit, patients with a medical history of neuropsychiatric adverse events had significantly worse scores in the neuropsychiatric domains (P < 0.01). During the trial, patients with at least one neuropsychiatric adverse event had significantly worse scores in the neuropsychiatric domains of the HPSP questionnaire (P < 0.01). ConclusionsIn the SENSE trial, dizziness and sleep disorders showed significantly worse HPSP scores in the efavirenz arm, compared with the etravirine arm at the Week 2 visit. However, at Week 48 there were no significant differences between the treatment arms in any domain of the patient HPSP. This suggests that the impact of efavirenz on quality of life may be short term for the majority of patients.

A Randomized, Pilot Trial to Evaluate Glomerular Filtration Rate by Creatinine or Cystatin C in Naive HIV-Infected Patients After Tenofovir/Emtricitabine in Combination With Atazanavir/Ritonavir or Efavirenz

Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimated by Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation based on creatinine or cystatine C may be more accurate methods especially in patients without chronic kidney disease. There is lack of data on GFR estimated by these methods in patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy. Antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients were randomized to tenofovir/emtricitabine in association with atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) or efavirenz (EFV) Patients had to have an actual creatinine clearance >50 mL/minute (24-hour urine collection) and were followed for 48 weeks. Ninety-one patients (48 ATV/r, 43 EFV) were recruited. Using the CKD-EPI creatinine formula, there was a significant decrease in GFR up to week 48 in patients receiving ATV/r (4.9 mL/minute/m(2), P = 0.02) compared with a not statistically significant increment in patients prescribed EFV. Using the cystatin C-based equation, we found greater decrease in GFR in both arms, although, in the EFV arm, the decrease was not statistically significant (5.8 mL/minute/m(2), P = 0.92). At multivariable analysis, ATV/r was a significant predictor of greater decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (P = 0.0046) only with CKD-EPI creatinine. ATV/r plus tenofovir caused greater GFR decreases compared with EFV. The evaluation of eGFR by cystatin C confirmed this result, but this method seemed to be more stringent, probably precluding the possibility to detect a significant difference in the pattern of eGFR evolution between the two arms over time. More studies are needed to understand the clinical relevance of these alterations and whether cystatin C is a more appropriate method for monitoring GFR in clinical practice.

Lipid profiles for etravirine versus efavirenz in treatment-naive patients in the randomized, double-blind SENSE trial

Etravirine is approved for use in treatment-experienced patients at a dose of 200 mg twice daily. Efavirenz has been associated with greater increases in serum lipids compared with other non-nucleosides in randomized trials of first-line treatment. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 157 treatment-naive patients with HIV RNA >5000 copies/mL were randomized 1:1 to either 400 mg of etravirine once daily (n=79) or 600 mg of efavirenz once daily (n=78) plus two nucleoside analogues (either abacavir/lamivudine, zidovudine/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine) for 48 weeks. Lipids were measured under fasting conditions at baseline and all visits to Week 48. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00903682. Overall, the patients had a median baseline CD4 count of 302 cells/mm(3) (range 74-722) and a median HIV RNA of 4.8 log(10) copies/mL (range 3.5-6.6). Both the non-nucleosides and the nucleoside analogues used caused changes in serum lipids. In the efavirenz arm, patients showed significantly larger increases in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (+0.15 mmol/L, P=0.004), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (+0.35 mmol/L, P=0.005), total cholesterol (+0.61 mmol/L, P<0.0001) and triglycerides (+0.33 mmol/L, P=0.03) at Week 48 compared with the etravirine arm. Across the two arms, patients taking abacavir/lamivudine showed greater increases in total cholesterol (+0.47 mmol/L, P=0.005) compared with patients taking tenofovir/emtricitabine. There were fewer grade 3/4 elevations in total cholesterol, LDL and triglycerides in the etravirine arm (2 patients, 1 patient and 0 patients, respectively) versus the efavirenz arm (8 patients, 6 patients and 2 patients, respectively). In the SENSE trial, first-line treatment with 400 mg of etravirine once daily plus two nucleoside analogues led to fewer grade 3 or 4 lipid elevations compared with efavirenz plus two nucleoside analogues.

Dynamics of cognitive change in HIV‐infected individuals commencing three different initial antiretroviral regimens: a randomized, controlled study

Improvements in neurocognitive (NC) function have been associated with commencing antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected subjects. However, the dynamics of such improvements are poorly understood. We assessed changes in NC function via a validated computerized battery (CogState™, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) at baseline and after 24 and 48 weeks in a subset of therapy-naïve neuro-asymptomatic HIV-infected subjects, randomized to commence three different antiretroviral regimens. Of 28 subjects enrolled in the study, nine, eight and 11 were randomly allocated to commence tenofovir/emtricitabine with efavirenz (arm 1), atazanavir/ritonavir (arm 2) and zidovudine/abacavir (arm 3), respectively. Overall improvements in NC function were observed at week 24 and function continued to improve at week 48 (changes in z-score for overall cognitive global score of 0.16 and 0.18 at weeks 24 and 48, respectively). Within the NC speed domains, generally greater improvements were observed in arms 2 and 3, compared with arm 1 (changes in z-score for composite speed scores at weeks 24/48 of 0.16/0.16, -0.29/-0.24 and -0.15/-0.31 in arms 1, 2 and 3, respectively; P = 0.04 for change at week 48 in arm 3 versus arm 1). Finally, improvements in executive function occurred later (only observed at week 48) and were driven by improvements in arm 3 (z-score changes of 0.23, 0.06 and -0.78 in arms 1, 2 and 3, respectively; P = 0.02 for change in arm 3 versus arm 1). Improvements in NC function continue over the first year after initiating antiretroviral therapy in neuro-asymptomatic HIV-infected subjects.

Phase 2 double-blind, randomized trial of etravirine versus efavirenz in treatment-naive patients

The Study of Etravirine Neuropsychiatric Symptoms versus Efavirenz (SENSE) trial compared etravirine with efavirenz in treatment-naive patients. The primary endpoint was neuropsychiatric adverse events up to week 12; HIV RNA suppression at week 48 was a secondary endpoint. Patients with HIV RNA more than 5000 copies/ml were randomized to etravirine 400 mg once daily (n = 79) or efavirenz (n = 78), plus two nucleoside analogues. HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml at week 48 was analysed using the time to loss of virological response (TLOVR) algorithm. Drug resistance at treatment failure and safety endpoints were also evaluated. At baseline, the median CD4 cell count was 302 cells/μl and HIV RNA was 4.8 log10 copies/ml. In the intent to treat TLOVR analysis at week 48, 60 of 79 (76%) patients on etravirine versus 58 of 78 (74%) on efavirenz had HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml. In the on-treatment analysis, 60 of 65 (92%) taking etravirine had HIV RNA les than 50 copies/ml versus 58 of 65 (89%) for efavirenz: etravirine showed noninferior efficacy versus efavirenz in both analyses (P < 0.05). Four patients had virological failure in the etravirine arm: none developed resistance to nucleoside analogues or nonnucleosides. Seven patients had virological failure in the efavirenz arm: three developed treatment-emergent resistance to nucleoside analogues and/or nonnucleosides. At the week 48 visit, the percentage with ongoing neuropsychiatric adverse events was 6.3% for etravirine and 21.5% for efavirenz (P = 0.011). First-line treatment with etravirine 400 mg once daily and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) led to similar rates of HIV RNA suppression, compared with efavirenz and two NRTIs. None of the patients with virological failure in the etravirine arm developed resistance to nonnucleosides.

Long-term Treatment With Raltegravir or Efavirenz Combined With Tenofovir/Emtricitabine for Treatment-Naive Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1–Infected Patients: 156-Week Results From STARTMRK

We compared 3 years of antiretroviral therapy with raltegravir or efavirenz as part of a combination regimen in the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naive patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Eligible patients with HIV-1 RNA (vRNA) levels >5000 copies/mL and without baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine were randomized in a double-blind, noninferiority study to receive raltegravir or efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine. Outcomes included viral suppression, adverse events, and changes from baseline metabolic parameters. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans were obtained on a convenience sample of patients at prespecified time points to assess changes in body fat composition. At week 156 counting noncompleters as failures, 212 (75.4%) of 281 versus 192 (68.1%) of 282 had vRNA levels <50 copies/mL in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Δ (95% CI) = 7.3% (-0.2, 14.7), noninferiority P < .001]. Mean changes from baseline CD4 count were 332 and 295 cells/mm³ in the raltegravir and efavirenz arms, respectively [Δ (95% CI) = 37 (4, 69)]. Consistent virologic and immunologic efficacy was maintained across prespecified demographic and baseline prognostic subgroups for both treatment groups. Fewer drug-related clinical adverse events (49% vs 80%; P < .001) occurred in raltegravir than efavirenz recipients, with discontinuations due to adverse events in 5% and 7%, respectively. Elevations in fasting lipid levels (including LDL- and HDL-cholesterol) were consistently lower in the raltegravir than efavirenz group (P < .005). Fat gain was 19% in 25 raltegravir recipients and 31% in 32 efavirenz recipients at week 156. When combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive patients, raltegravir produced durable viral suppression and immune restoration that was at least equivalent to efavirenz through 156 weeks of therapy. Both regimens were well tolerated, but raltegravir was associated with fewer drug-related clinical adverse events and smaller elevations in lipid levels. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00369941.

Optimizing Initial Therapy for HIV Infection

study, with an a priori definition of equivalence being met if the bounds of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the hazard ratio of virologic failure fell between 0.71 and 1.40. Study participants were stratified by baseline viral load at the 100000 copies/mL threshold. A planned interim review by a data safety and monitoring board found an increased risk of virologic failure when abacavir/lamivudine was used among those with baseline plasma viral load .100000 copies/mL (hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 1.46‐3.72), leading to study unblinding in this group. The atazanavir/r and efavirenz arms of ACTG 5202 were found to have comparable efficacy (hazard ratios for time to virologic failure: 1.13 [95% CI, .82‐1.56] and 1.01 [95% CI, .70‐1.46], respectively) [7], although this did not meet the prespecified definition of equivalence. The additional ACTG 5202 results presented in this issue of the Journal show that abacavir/lamivudine and tenofovir/ emtricitabine have comparable efficacy (hazard ratios for time to virologic failure: 1.25 [95% CI, .76‐2.05] and 1.23 [95% CI, .77‐1.96], when used with boosted atazanavir and efavirenz respectively) among those participants whose baseline plasma viral load was ,100000copies/mL[8]. Of note, analysis of emerging resistance mutations following virologic failure did not identify statistically significant differences in the nature of resistance mutations for those receiving abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine in combination with either atazanavir/r or efavirenz. Mutations identified were most commonly the M184V mutation associated with lamivudine resistance, and the K103N mutation conferring first-line NNRTI resistance in those failing efavirenz-based regimens. No protease inhibitor mutations were identified. In contrast, analysis of the virologic outcomes for those

Deep V3 Sequencing for HIV Type 1 Tropism in Treatment-Naive Patients: A Reanalysis of the MERIT Trial of Maraviroc

Deep sequencing is a highly sensitive technique that can detect and quantify the proportion of non-R5 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) variants, including small minorities, that may emerge and cause virologic failure in patients who receive maraviroc-containing regimens. We retrospectively tested the ability of deep sequencing to predict response to a maraviroc-containing regimen in the Maraviroc versus Efavirenz in Treatment-Naive Patients (MERIT) trial. Results were compared with those obtained using the Enhanced Sensitivity Trofile Assay (ESTA), which is widely used in clinical practice. Screening plasma samples from treatment-naive patients who received maraviroc and efavirenz in the MERIT trial were assessed. Samples were extracted, and the V3 region of HIV type 1 glycoprotein 120 was amplified in triplicate and combined in equal quantities before sequencing on a Roche/454 Genome Sequencer-FLX (n = 859). Tropism was inferred from third variable (V3) sequences, with samples classified as non-R5 if ≥2% of the viral population scored ≤3.5 using geno2pheno. Deep sequencing distinguished between responders and nonresponders to maraviroc. Among patients identified as having R5-HIV by deep sequencing, 67% of maraviroc recipients and 69% of efavirenz recipients had a plasma viral load <50 copies/mL at week 48, similar to the ESTA results: 68% and 68%, respectively. Reanalysis of the MERIT trial using deep V3 loop sequencing indicates that, had patients originally been screened using this method, the maraviroc arm would have likely been found to be noninferior to the efavirenz arm.

A comparison of neuropsychiatric adverse events during 12 weeks of treatment with etravirine and efavirenz in a treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected population

Although efavirenz is a universally recommended treatment for naive HIV-infected individuals, neuropsychiatric adverse events are common. The Study of Efavirenz NeuropSychiatric Events versus Etravirine (SENSE) trial is a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which 157 treatment-naive individuals with HIV-RNA higher than 5000 copies/ml were randomized to etravirine 400 mg once daily (n = 79) or to efavirenz 600 mg once daily (n = 78), with two investigator-selected nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). The primary end point was the percentage of patients with grade 1-4 drug-related treatment-emergent neuropsychiatric adverse events up to week 12. The study population were 81% men and 85% whites, with a median age of 36 years, baseline CD4 cell counts of 302 cells/μl and HIV-RNA of 4.8 log10 copies/ml. In the intent-to-treat analysis, 13 of 79 individuals (16.5%) in the etravirine arm and 36 of 78 individuals (46.2%) in the efavirenz arm showed at least one grade 1-4 drug-related treatment-emergent neuropsychiatric adverse event (P < 0.001). The number with at least one grade 2-4 drug-related treatment-emergent neuropsychiatric adverse event was four of 79 individuals (5.1%) in the etravirine arm and 13 of 78 individuals (16.7%) in the efavirenz arm (P = 0.019). The change in HIV-RNA to week 12 was -2.9 log10 in both treatment arms. The median rise in CD4 cell counts was 146 cells/μl in the etravirine arm and 121 cells/μl in the efavirenz arm. After 12 weeks, first-line treatment with etravirine 400 mg once daily with two NRTIs was associated with significantly fewer neuropsychiatric adverse events when compared with efavirenz with two NRTIs. The virological and immunological efficacy profile was similar between the two arms.

Open-Label Randomized Multicenter Selection Study of Once Daily Antiretroviral Treatment Regimen Comparing Ritonavir-Boosted Atazanavir to Efavirenz with Fixed-Dose Abacavir and Lamivudine

The side-effects of anti-retroviral drugs are different between Japanese and Caucasian patients. Severe central nerve system (CNS) side-effects to efavirenz and low rate of hypersensitivity against abacavir characterize the Japanese. The objective of this study was to select a once daily regimen for further non-inferior study comparing the virological efficacy and safety of the first line once daily antiretroviral treatment regimens in the current HIV/AIDS guideline. The study design was a randomized, open label, multicenter, selection study. One arm was treated with efavirenz and the other with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir. A fixed-dose lamivudine plus abacavir were used in both arms. The primary endpoint was virologic success (viral load less than 50 copies/mL) rate at 48 weeks. Patients were followed-up to 96 weeks with safety as the secondary endpoint. Clinicaltrials.Gov (NCT00280969) and the University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000000243). A total of 71 participants were enrolled. Virologic success rates in both arms were similar at week 48 [efavirenz arm 28/36 (77.8%); atazanavir arm 27/35 (77.1%)], but were decreased at week 96 to 55.6% in the efavirenz arm and 68.8% in the atazanavir arm (p=0.33). At the 96-week follow-up, 52.8% of the EFV arm and 34.3% of the ATV/r arm reached total cholesterol more than 220 mg/dL and required treatment. None of the patients developed cardiovascular complications in this study by week 96. There was no significant difference in the efficacy of efavirenz and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir combined with lamivudine plus abacavir at 48 weeks. The evaluation of safety was extended to 96 weeks, which also showed no significant difference in both arms.

Effects of Maraviroc and Efavirenz on Markers of Immune Activation and Inflammation and Associations with CD4+ Cell Rises in HIV-Infected Patients

BackgroundMaraviroc treatment for HIV-1 infected patients results in larger CD4+ T cell rises than are attributable to its antiviral activity alone. We investigated whether this is due to modulation of T cell activation and inflammation.Methods and FindingsThirty maraviroc-treated patients from the Maraviroc versus Efavirenz Regimens as Initial Therapy (MERIT) study were randomly selected from among those who had CCR5-tropic (R5) HIV on screening and achieved undetectable HIV RNA (<50 copies/mL) by Week 48. Efavirenz-treated controls were matched for baseline characteristics to the maraviroc-treated patients selected for this substudy. Changes in immune activation and inflammation markers were examined for associations with CD4+ T cell changes. Maraviroc treatment tended to result in more rapid decreases in CD38 expression on CD4+ T cells and in plasma D-dimer concentrations than did treatment with efavirenz. The proportion of patients with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein >2 µg/mL increased from 45% to 66% in the efavirenz arm, but remained constant in the maraviroc arm (P = 0.033). Decreases in CD38 expression on CD8+ T cells were correlated with CD4+ T cell rises for maraviroc treatment (r = −0.4, P = 0.048), but not for treatment with efavirenz.ConclusionsMaraviroc-treated patients had earlier, modest decreases in certain markers of immune activation and inflammation, although in this small study, many of the differences were not statistically significant. Levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein remained constant in the maraviroc arm and increased in the efavirenz arm. Decreases in immune activation correlated with increased CD4+ T cell gains.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00098293

Efavirenz versus Boosted Atazanavir or Zidovudine and Abacavir in Antiretroviral Treatment–Naive, HIV‐Infected Subjects: Week 48 Data from the Altair Study

Antiretroviral therapy is complicated by drug interactions and contraindications. Novel regimens are needed. This open label study randomly assigned treatment-naive, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects to receive tenofovir-emtricitabine with efavirenz (Arm I), with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (Arm II), or with zidovudine/abacavir (Arm III). Pair-wise comparisons of differences in time-weighted mean change from baseline plasma HIV-RNA to week 48 formed the primary analysis. Treatment arms were noninferior if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was <0.5 log(10) copies/mL. Secondary objectives included virologic, immunologic and safety end points. The intention-to-treat population comprised 322 patients (Arm I, n = 114; Arm II, n = 105; and Arm III, n = 103). Noninferiority for the primary end point was established. Analysis for superiority showed that Arm III was significantly less potent than Arm I (-0.20 log(10) copies/mL; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.01 log(10) copies/mL; P = .038). The proportions of patients on each of Arm I (95%) and Arm II (96%) with <200 copies/mL were not different (P = .75), but the percentage of patients in Arm III with <200 copies/mL (82%) was significantly lower (P = .005). CD4+ cell counts did not differ. Serious adverse events were more frequent in Arm III (n = 30) than in Arm I or Arm II (n = 15 for each; P = .062). A novel quadruple nucleo(t)side combination demonstrated significantly less suppression of HIV replication, compared with the suppression demonstrated by standard antiretroviral therapy regimens, although it did meet the predetermined formal definition of noninferiority. Secondary analyses indicated statistically inferior virologic and safety performance. Efavirenz and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir arms were equivalent in viral suppression and safety.

Immune Reconstitution in Severely Immunosuppressed Antiretroviral-Naive HIV Type 1-Infected Patients Using a Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor-Based or a Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Antiretroviral Regimen: Three-Year Results (The Advanz Trial): A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Late diagnosis of HIV-1 infection is quite frequent in Western countries. Very few randomized clinical trials to determine the best antiretroviral treatment in patients with advanced HIV-1 infection have been performed. To compare immune reconstitution in two groups of very immunosuppressed (less than 100 CD4(+) cells/microl), antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected adults, 65 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zidovudine + lamivudine + efavirenz (group A, 34 patients) or zidovudine + lamivudine + ritonavir-boosted indinavir (group B, 31 patients). The median (interquartile range) CD4(+) cell increase after 12 and 36 months was +199 (101, 258) and +299 (170, 464) cells/microl in the efavirenz arm and +136 (57, 235) and +228 (119, 465) cells/microl in the ritonavir-boosted indinavir arm (p > 0.05 for all time points). The proportion (95% confidence interval) of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA levels under 50 copies/ml was significantly greater in the efavirenz arm at 3 years by the intention-to-treat analysis [59% (41%, 75%) vs. 23% (10%, 41%)], whereas no differences were found in the on-treatment analysis. Immune activation (CD8(+)CD38(+) and CD8(+)CD38DR(+) T cells) was significantly lower for the efavirenz arm from month 6 to month 24. Adverse events were more frequent in the ritonavir-boosted indinavir arm. Almost all cases of disease progression and death were observed in the first year of treatment, with no significant differences between the two arms (p = 0.79 by the log-rank test). At 1 and 3 years, the immune reconstitution induced by an efavirenz-based regimen in very immunosuppressed patients was at least as potent as that induced by a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral regimen.

Using Mechanistic Models to Simulate Comparative Effectiveness Trials of Therapy and to Estimate Long-term Outcomes in HIV Care

In HIV care, it is difficult to decide when to initiate therapy, which drugs to use for initial treatment, and which drugs to use if drug resistance develops. With hundreds of possible drug regimens available and variable patterns of drug resistance, randomized controlled trials cannot answer all HIV treatment decisions. Mechanistic models of HIV infection can be used to conduct virtual therapeutic trials with the goal of predicting outcomes, some of which are long-term and may not fall within the time frame of a typical therapeutic trial. We used a previously developed and validated model of HIV infection to replicate 2 arms of an HIV initial treatment trial (ACTG A5142) and predict long-term outcomes. The model incorporated data about biologic processes involved in the development of drug resistance. The model reproduced the proportion that developed AIDS (0.04 and 0.05 for the efavirenz arm and lopinavir arms, respectively, vs. 0.04 and 0.06 for the trial), the development of virologic failure (0.27 and 0.33 for the Efavirenz arm and lopinavir arms, respectively, vs. 0.24 and 0.37 for the trial), and drug resistance. The hazard ratio for the time to treatment failure, a combination of resistance and other causes (0.96 for the model vs. 0.75 for the trial; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.98), and changes in CD4 cell count, were less accurate. The model estimated longer-term life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and HIV-related deaths. Mechanistic models of HIV infections have the potential to be useful in comparative effectiveness research.

Does Choice of Combination Antiretroviral Therapy (cART) Alter Changes in Cerebral Function Testing after 48 Weeks in Treatment‐Naive, HIV‐1–Infected Individuals Commencing cART? A Randomized, Controlled Study

Neurocognitive impairment remains prevalent, despite combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). Differences between changes in cerebral function and alternative cARTs have not been prospectively assessed. Treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected individuals randomly allocated to commence cART (tenofovir-emtricitabine plus either efavirenz [arm 1], atazanavir-ritonavir [arm 2], or zidovudine-abacavir [arm 3]) were eligible. Cerebral function tests included neurocognitive testing and assessment of cerebral metabolites using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in several anatomical voxels, including right frontal white matter and right basal ganglia, at baseline and after 48 weeks. N-acetylaspartate-to-creatine (NAA/Cr) ratios were calculated. Both the differences between changes in neurocognitive function and NAA/Cr ratios over 48 weeks and the study arms (arm 1 vs arm 2; arm 1 vs arm 3) were assessed. Thirty subjects completed study procedures (9, 9, and 12 subjects in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Mean CD4+ cell counts (+/- standard deviation) were 218 +/- 87 cells/microL at baseline and 342 +/- 145 cells/microL at week 48. The mean plasma HIV-1 RNA level was <50 copies/mL for 28 of the 30 subjects at week 48. Over 48 weeks, greater improvements in identification reaction time (P = .04) and executive function (P = .02) were observed in arm 3, compared with arm 1 (0.03, -0.30, -0.50 log10 ms change in identification reaction time, in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Increases in the NAA/Cr ratio were observed in all voxels (maximum 38% in right basal ganglia), with greater increases observed in arm 1 than in arm 2 (P = .03) in frontal white matter (30%, -7%, and 0% change in the NAA/Cr ratio, in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively). To our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively describe different changes in cerebral function testing parameters between different cARTs. Greater improvements in neuronal recovery (NAA/Cr ratio) were observed for recipients of tenofovir-emtricitabine plus efavirenz (arm 1), and greater improvements in neurocognitive function testing were observed for recipients of tenofovir-emtricitabine plus zidovudine-abacavir (arm 3).

Long-Term Efficacy and Tolerance of Efavirenz- and Nevirapine-Containing Regimens in Adult HIV Type 1 Senegalese Patients

Owing to their low toxicity, low price, and ease of use, efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP) are frequently used as part of antiretroviral regimens for AIDS treatment. Several clinical trials have already studied their efficacy and tolerance. However, long-term observations of the effects of these drugs in patients are limited. We used data from a prospective Senegalese cohort to analyze long-term tolerance and efficacy of these two drugs in a low-resources setting. Patients were included if they started their therapy with EFV or NVP. They were censored after treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was the time to treatment discontinuation. Secondary endpoints included time to death, time to disease progression, occurrence of severe adverse effects, CD4 cell recovery, and virological response. Confounding factors were controlled using marginal structural models. The median follow-up time in both EFV and NVP arms was 48 months. The hazard ratio (HR) of drug discontinuation in the EFV arm vs. the NVP arm was 0.84 (0.34; 1.87). There was a borderline difference in virological response [HR 1.38 (0.999; 1.89)] but no differences in time to death [HR 1.15 (0.41; 3.24)], time to AIDS progression [HR 1.25 (0.61; 2.58)], or time to increase in CD4 cell count above 500 cells/mm3. Adverse effects were different between NVP and EFV, but long-term tolerance was good for both. This analysis provided further information on long-term tolerance and efficacy of EFV and NVP in a resource-limited setting.

Antiviral Activity and Safety of Aplaviroc with Lamivudine/Zidovudine in HIV-Infected, Therapy-Naive Patients: The ASCENT (CCR102881) Study

This Phase IIb study explored the antiviral activity and safety of the investigational CCR5 antagonist aplaviroc (APL) in antiretroviral-naive patients harbouring R5-tropic virus. One hundred and forty-seven patients were randomized 2:2:1 to one of two APL dosing regimens or efavirenz (EFV). All dosage arms were administered twice daily and in combination with lamivudine/zidovudine (3TC/ZDV; Combivir, COM). Efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed. This study was prematurely terminated due to APL-associated idiosyncratic hepatotoxicity. The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/ml who remained on randomized treatment through week 12. Of the 147 patients enrolled, 145 patients received one dose of treatment and were included in the intention-to-treat population. The proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/ml at week 12 was 53%, 50% and 66% in the APL 600 mg twice daily, APL 800 mg twice daily, and EFV arms, respectively. Common clinical adverse events (AEs) were diarrhoea, nausea, fatigue and headache. APL demonstrated non-linear pharmacokinetics with high interpatient variability. In addition to the hepatic findings, there was an apparent dose-response relationship in the incidence of diarrhoea. Whereas target plasma concentrations of APL were achieved, the antiviral activity of APL as the third agent in a triple drug regimen did not appear to be comparable to EFV in this treatment-naive patient population.

Induction therapy with trizivir plus efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir followed by trizivir alone in naive HIV-1-infected adults

Induction-maintenance strategies were associated with a low response rate. We compared the virological response with two different induction regimens with trizivir plus efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir. A randomized, multicentre, open-label clinical trial with 209 antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients assigned to trizivir plus either efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir during 24-36 weeks. Patients reaching undetectable plasma viral loads during induction entered a 48-week maintenance on trizivir alone. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without treatment failure at 72 weeks using an intent to treat (ITT) analysis (switching equals failure). Patients were randomly assigned (efavirenz 104; lopinavir/ritonavir 105), and 114 (55%) entered the maintenance phase (efavirenz 54; lopinavir/ritonavir 60). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. The response rate at 72 weeks was 31 and 43% (ITT analysis, P = 0.076) and 63 and 75% (on-treatment analysis, P = 0.172) in the efavirenz and lopinavir/ritonavir arms, respectively. Virological failure occurred in 27 patients: six during induction (efavirenz, three; lopinavir/ritonavir, three; P = 1.0) and 21 during maintenance (efavirenz, 14; lopinavir/ritonavir, seven; P = 0.057). Thirty-four patients in the efavirenz arm switched treatment because of adverse events compared with 25 in the lopinavir/ritonavir arm (P = 0.17). Trizivir plus either efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir followed by maintenance with trizivir achieved a low but similar response at 72 weeks, with a high incidence of adverse events leading to drug discontinuation during the induction phase in both arms. The study showed a trend towards an increased virological failure rate in the efavirenz arm during the maintenance phase.

Optimal Timing and Best Antiretroviral Regimen in Treatment-naive HIV-Infected Individuals with Advanced Disease

The introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in developed countries has achieved a good control of HIV infection. Despite this, a delayed HIV diagnosis makes it necessary to start antiretroviral treatment in individuals with severe impairment of their immunological function. Very often, this is accompanied by an opportunistic infection that needs to be treated, with a consequent complication of management because of overlapping toxicities and pharmacokinetic interactions with antiretroviral drugs, and a greater pill burden. All this could impair adherence and reconstitution of the immune function with a paradoxical clinical worsening in some patients, especially if the CD4 cell count is below 50 cells/microl. The best antiretroviral regimen and the best timing for starting antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naive patients with advanced infection have not yet been established. Recommendations for the clinical management of advanced HIV disease come from panels of experts in the therapy of opportunistic infections and antiretroviral treatment, and they advise starting combined antiretroviral therapy 2-4 weeks after initiating treatment of the opportunistic infection. Many patients have been successfully treated with a pharmacologically enhanced (boosted) protease inhibitor (mainly lopinavir/ritonavir)-based regimens. The efficacy of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based regimens for the treatment of very immunosuppressed patients has been tested in few clinical trials during the HAART era. Some cohort studies and randomized clinical trials support the use of efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy for the treatment of advanced HIV-1-infected patients; however, recent randomized controlled data suggest, in a moderately advanced HIV population, a better CD4 cell recovery for lopinavir-ritonavir than for efavirenz-treated patients, but a greater virological suppression in the efavirenz arm. Further randomized clinical trials are needed in order to determine whether the efficacy, tolerability and the immunological reconstitution of efavirenz-based therapy can match that achieved with lopinavir/ritonavir or other current boosted protease inhibitor regimens in advanced patients.

Considerations on the effectiveness of nevirapine in protease inhibitor-based regimen simplification

Considerations on the effectiveness of nevirapine in protease inhibitor-based regimen simplification