Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor Backbone Research Articles

Virological failure of staggered and simultaneous treatment interruption in HIV patients who began Efavirenz-based regimens after allergic reactions to nevirapine

ObjectiveThe objective of this work was to study the virological outcomes associated with two different types of treatment interruption strategies in patients with allergic reactions to nevirapine (NVP). We compared the virological outcomes of (1) HIV-1-infected patients who discontinued an initial NVP-based regimen because of cutaneous allergic reactions to NVP; different types of interruption strategies were used, and second-line regimen was based on efavirenz (EFV); and (2) HIV-1-infected patients who began an EFV-based regimen as a first-line therapy (controls).MethodsThis retrospective cohort included patients who began an EFV-based regimen, between January 2002 and December 2008, as either an initial regimen or as a subsequent regimen after resolving a cutaneous allergic reaction against an initial NVP-based regimen. The study ended in March 2010. The primary outcome was virological failure, which was defined as either (a) two consecutive plasma HIV-1 RNA levels >400 copies/mL or (b) a plasma HIV-1 RNA level >1,000 copies/mL plus any genotypic resistance mutation.ResultsA total of 559 patients were stratified into three groups: (a) Simultaneous Interruption, in which the subjects simultaneously discontinued all the drugs in an NVP-based regimen following an allergic reaction (n=161); (b) Staggered Interruption, in which the subjects discontinued NVP treatment while continuing nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone therapy for a median of 7 days (n=82); and (c) Control, in which the subjects were naïve to antiretroviral therapy (n=316). The overall median follow-up time was 43 months. Incidence of virological failure in Simultaneous Interruption was 12.9 cases per 1,000 person-years, which trended toward being higher than the incidences in Staggered Interruption (5.4) and Control (6.6). However, differences were not statistically significant.ConclusionsAmong the patients who had an acute allergic reaction to first-line NVP-based therapy and later began an EFV-based regimen, virological outcomes resulting from a staggered interruption of treatment (with a continuation of NRTI backbone therapy for 7 days after discontinuing NVP) did not differ from those of the patients who began an EFV-based regimen as their initial therapy (Control). However, the virological failure of Simultaneous Interruption was possibly higher than those of Control and Staggered Interruption.

Análisis comparativo de coste-eficacia entre darunavir/ritonavir y otros inhibidores de la proteasa en el tratamiento de la infección por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana de tipo 1 en pacientes naïve en España

IntroductionGESIDA (AIDS Study Group) has proposed preferred regimens of antiretroviral treatment as initial therapy in HIV infected patients. The objective of this analysis is to compare the costs and effectiveness of darunavir/r QD and other ritonavir-boosted (/r) protease inhibitors (PIs) currently recommended in GESIDA guidelines for treatment-naïve patients. MethodsA cost-efficacy model compared the boosted PIs recommended as preferred or alternative treatment choices, each used with a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Efficacy was measured by 48-week virological response (viral load < 50 copies/mL) adjusted by baseline viral load and CD4 cell count. To generate efficiency frontiers and cost-efficacy ratios, one-year antiretroviral therapy costs in Spain, and 48-week efficacy values were used. ResultsThe model estimated that starting treatment with darunavir/r QD was the most cost-effective choice compared with the other preferred PI/r based therapies. The average cost per patient with a virological response was lower for darunavir/r QD (13,420€) than for atazanavir/r QD (14,000€), or lopinavir/r BID (13,815€). Among the preferred PI/r-based therapies, darunavir/r QD also was estimated to be the most efficient option for treatment-naïve patients. Atazanavir/r QD and lopinavir/r BID were found to be «dominated» by darunavir/r) and, consequently, were outside the efficiency frontier of PI/r-based first-line treatment. Given a fixed budget of 10 million euros for PI/r-based first-line therapy, the model estimated that darunavir/r QD would yield more responders (745) than atazanavir/r QD (714), or lopinavir/r BID (724). At the same time, darunavir/r QD would reduce the number of individuals failing treatment (150) compared with atazanavir/r QD (172) and lopinavir/r BID (286). ConclusionsIn this model, darunavir/r QD was found to be the most cost-effective choice, among the preferred PI/r-based therapies recommended in the Spanish guidelines for treatment-naïve patients.

Impact of baseline HIV‐1 RNA levels on initial highly active antiretroviral therapy outcome: a meta‐analysis of 12,370 patients in 21 clinical trials*

Individual randomized trials of first-line antiretroviral treatment do not consistently show an association between higher baseline HIV-1 RNA and lower efficacy. A MEDLINE search identified 21 HIV clinical trials with published analyses of antiretroviral efficacy by baseline HIV-1 RNA, using a standardized efficacy endpoint of HIV-1 RNA suppression <50 copies/mL at week 48. Among 21 clinical trials identified, eight evaluated only nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based combinations, eight evaluated only protease inhibitor-based regimens and five compared different treatment classes. Ten of the trials included tenofovir (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC) as only nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone, in addition but not restricted to abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC) (n = 7), zidovudine (ZDV)/3TC (n = 4) and stavudine (d4T)/3TC (n = 1). Across trials, the mean percentage of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL at week 48 was 81.5% (5322 of 6814) for patients with baseline HIV-1 RNA < 100 000, vs. 72.6% (3949 of 5556) for patients with HIV-1 RNA > 100 000 copies/mL. In the meta-analysis, the absolute difference in efficacy between low and high HIV-1 RNA subgroups was 7.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-8.9%; P < 0.001]. This difference was consistent in trials of NNRTI-based treatments (difference = 6.9%; 95% CI 4.3-9.6%), protease inhibitor-based treatments (difference = 8.4%; 95% CI 6.0-10.8%) and integrase or chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 5 (CCR5)-based treatments (difference = 6.0%; 95% CI 2.1-9.9%) and for trials using TDF/FTC (difference = 8.4%; 95% CI 6.0-10.8%); there was no evidence for heterogeneity of this difference between trials (Cochran's Q test; not significant). In this meta-analysis of 21 first-line clinical trials, rates of HIV-1 RNA suppression at week 48 were significantly lower for patients w ith baseline HIV-1 RNA > 100 000 copies/mL (P < 0.001). This difference in efficacy was consistent across trials of different treatment classes and NRTI backbones.

NRTI Backbone in HIV Treatment

Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) remain a critical component of therapy for HIV-infected patients. The drugs are effective, relatively inexpensive and an important component of antiretroviral therapy (ART), particularly in areas where the introduction of effective therapy has been delayed. They are an essential part of initial therapy for HIV and for prevention of mother-to-child transmission; however, toxicities and resistance may limit their use. The role for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to reduce sexual transmission of HIV is still undefined, but this use may have a significant impact on NRTI resistance worldwide, most particularly in areas where subtype C predominates. With increasing prevalence of resistant HIV, the approval of new agents that are effective against resistant virus, and those that use novel cellular targets, are essential. Large studies are now in progress examining the safety and efficacy of NRTI-sparing regimens, but results are not currently available. NRTIs may lose relevance in the not distant future unless steps are put in place to reduce the development and spread of NRTI-resistant viruses, and new NRTIs with minimal toxicity are developed that have a novel resistance profile. This article describes the principal NRTIs, their mechanism of action, and resistance and selected toxicities of the class and of the individual drugs.

5.0 What to start

5.0 What to start

A Randomized Trial of Raltegravir Replacement for Protease Inhibitor or Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor in HIV-Infected Women with Lipohypertrophy

Lipohypertrophy in HIV-infected patients is associated with metabolic abnormalities. Raltegravir (RAL) is not known to induce fat changes or severe metabolic perturbations. HIV-infected women with central adiposity and HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per milliliter on non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)- or protease inhibitor (PI)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) continued their nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone and were randomized to switch to open label RAL immediately or after 24 weeks. The primary end point was 24-week between-group change in computed tomography (CT)-quantified visceral adipose tissue (AT) volume. Fasting lipids, glucose, C-reactive protein (CRP), anthropometric measurements, and patient-reported quality of life assessments were also measured. Thirty-six subjects provided 80% power to detect a 10% between-group difference in visceral AT over 24 weeks. Thirty-seven of 39 enrolled subjects completed week 24. At entry, subjects were 75% black or Hispanic, and on 62% PI-based and 38% NNRTI-based regimens. The median age was 43 years, CD4 count 558 cells per microliter, and body mass index (BMI) 32 kg/m(2). After 24 weeks, no statistically significant changes in visceral or subcutaneous AT, anthropometrics, BMI, glucose, or CRP were observed. In subjects receiving RAL, significant improvements in total and LDL cholesterol (p=0.04), self-reported belly size (p=0.02) and composite body size (p=0.02) were observed. Body size changes correlated well with percent visceral AT change. No RAL-related adverse events occurred. Compared to continued PI or NNRTI, switch to RAL was associated with statistically significant 24-week improvements in total and LDL cholesterol but not AT volumes. Additional insights into AT and metabolic changes in women on RAL will be provided by 48-week follow-up of the immediate-switch arm.

A Switch in Therapy to a Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor Sparing Combination of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Raltegravir in Virologically Suppressed HIV-Infected Patients: A Pilot Randomized Trial to Assess Efficacy and Safety Profile: The KITE Study

A nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone is a recommended component of standard highly active antiretroviral therapy (sHAART). However, long-term NRTI exposure can be limited by toxicities. NRTI class-sparing alternatives are warranted in select patient populations. This is a 48-week single-center, open-label pilot study in which 60 HIV-infected adults with plasma HIV-1 RNA (<50 copies/ml) on sHAART were randomized (2:1) to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 400/100 mg BID+raltegravir (RAL) 400 mg BID switch (LPV-r/RAL arm) or to continue on sHAART. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with HIV-RNA<50 copies/ml at week 48. Secondary efficacy and immunologic and safety endpoints were evaluated. Demographics and baseline lipid profile were similar across arms. Mean entry CD4 T cell count was 493 cells/mm(3). At week 48, 92% [95% confidence interval (CI): 83-100%] of the LPV-r/RAL arm and 88% (95% CI: 75-100%) of the sHAART arm had HIV-RNA<50 copies/ml (p=0.70). Lipid profile (mean ± SEM, mg/dl, LPV-r/RAL vs. sHAART) at week 24 was total-cholesterol 194 ± 5 vs. 176 ± 9 (p=0.07), triglycerides 234 ± 30 vs. 133 ± 27 (p=0.003), and LDL-cholesterol 121 ± 6 vs. 110 ± 8 (p=0.27). There were no serious adverse events (AEs) in either arm. Regimen change occurred in three LPV-r/RAL subjects (n=1, due to LPV-r/RAL-related AEs) vs. 0 in sHAART. There were no differences between arms in bone mineral density, total body fat composition, creatinine clearance, or CD4 T cell counts at week 48. In virologically suppressed patients on HAART, switching therapy to the NRTI-sparing LPV-r/RAL combination produced similar sustained virologic suppression and immunologic profile as sHAART. AEs were comparable between arms, but the LPV-r/RAL arm experienced higher triglyceridemia.

Patterns of HIV-1 Drug Resistance After First-Line Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Failure in 6 Sub-Saharan African Countries: Implications for Second-Line ART Strategies

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) drug resistance may limit the benefits of antiretroviral therapy (ART). This cohort study examined patterns of drug-resistance mutations (DRMs) in individuals with virological failure on first-line ART at 13 clinical sites in 6 African countries and predicted their impact on second-line drug susceptibility. A total of 2588 antiretroviral-naive individuals initiated ART consisting of different nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbones (zidovudine, stavudine, tenofovir, or abacavir, plus lamivudine or emtricitabine) with either efavirenz or nevirapine. Population sequencing after 12 months of ART was retrospectively performed if HIV RNA was >1000 copies/mL. The 2010 International Antiviral Society-USA list was used to score major DRMs. The Stanford algorithm was used to predict drug susceptibility. HIV-1 sequences were generated for 142 participants who virologically failed ART, of whom 70% carried ≥1 DRM and 49% had dual-class resistance, with an average of 2.4 DRMs per sequence (range, 1-8). The most common DRMs were M184V (53.5%), K103N (28.9%), Y181C (15.5%), and G190A (14.1%). Thymidine analogue mutations were present in 8.5%. K65R was frequently selected by stavudine (15.0%) or tenofovir (27.7%). Among participants with ≥1 DRM, HIV-1 susceptibility was reduced in 93% for efavirenz/nevirapine, in 81% for lamivudine/emtricitabine, in 59% for etravirine/rilpivirine, in 27% for tenofovir, in 18% for stavudine, and in 10% for zidovudine. Early failure detection limited the accumulation of resistance. After stavudine failure in African populations, zidovudine rather than tenofovir may be preferred in second-line ART. Strategies to prevent HIV-1 resistance are a global priority.

Spillover adherence effects of fixed-dose combination HIV therapy

The impact of fixed-dose combination (FDC) products on adherence to other, non-fixed regimen components has not been examined. We compared adherence to a third antiretroviral (ART) component among patients receiving a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone consisting of the FDC Epzicom®, GlaxoSmithKline Inc, Research Triangle Park, NC (abacavir sulfate 600 mg + lamivudine 300 mg; FDC group) versus NRTI combinations taken as two separate pills (NRTI Combo group) using data from a national sample of 30 health plans covering approximately 38 million lives from 1997 to 2005. Adherence was measured as the medication possession ratio (MPR). Multivariate logistic regression compared treatment groups based on the likelihood of achieving ≥95% adherence, with sensitivity analyses using alternative thresholds. MPR was assessed as a continuous variable using multivariate linear regression. Covariates included age, gender, insurance payer type, year of study drug initiation, presence of mental health and substance abuse disorders, and third agent class. The study sample consisted of 650 FDC and 1947 NRTI Combo patients. Unadjusted mean adherence to the third agent was higher in the FDC group than the NRTI Combo group (0.92 vs 0.85; P < 0.0001). In regression analyses, FDC patients were 48% and 39% more likely to achieve 95% and 90% third agent adherence, respectively (P ≤ 0.03). None of the other MPR specifications achieved comparable results. Among managed care patients, use of an FDC appears to substantially improve adherence to a third regimen component and thus the likelihood of achieving the accepted standard for adherence to HIV therapy of 95%.

Resistance Patterns Selected by Nevirapine vs. Efavirenz in HIV-Infected Patients Failing First-Line Antiretroviral Treatment: A Bayesian Analysis

BackgroundWHO recommends starting therapy with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), i.e. nevirapine or efavirenz, with lamivudine or emtricitabine, plus zidovudine or tenofovir. Few studies have compared resistance patterns induced by efavirenz and nevirapine in patients infected with the CRF01_AE Southeast Asian HIV-subtype. We compared patterns of NNRTI- and NRTI-associated mutations in Thai adults failing first-line nevirapine- and efavirenz -based combinations, using Bayesian statistics to optimize use of data.Methods and FindingsIn a treatment cohort of HIV-infected adults on NNRTI-based regimens, 119 experienced virologic failure (>500 copies/mL), with resistance mutations detected by consensus sequencing. Mutations were analyzed in relation to demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables at time of genotyping. The Geno2Pheno system was used to evaluate second-line drug options. Eighty-nine subjects were on nevirapine and 30 on efavirenz. The NRTI backbone consisted of lamivudine or emtricitabine plus either zidovudine (37), stavudine (65), or tenofovir (19). The K103N mutation was detected in 83% of patients on efavirenz vs. 28% on nevirapine, whereas Y181C was detected in 56% on nevirapine vs. 20% efavirenz. M184V was more common with nevirapine (87%) than efavirenz (63%). Nevirapine favored TAM-2 resistance pathways whereas efavirenz selected both TAM-2 and TAM-1 pathways. Emergence of TAM-2 mutations increased with the duration of virologic replication (OR 1.25–1.87 per month increment). In zidovudine-containing regimens, the overall risk of resistance across all drugs was lower with nevirapine than with efavirenz, whereas in tenofovir-containing regimen the opposite was true.ConclusionsTAM-2 was the major NRTI resistance pathway for CRF01_AE, particularly with nevirapine; it appeared late after virological failure. In patients who failed, there appeared to be more second-line drug options when zidovudine was combined with nevirapine or tenofovir with efavirenz than with alternative combinations.

Abacavir versus other nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone therapies for treatment of HIV infection

Abacavir versus other nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone therapies for treatment of HIV infection

Reverse Transcriptase Genotypes in Pediatric Patients Failing Initial Antiretroviral Therapy in Gaborone, Botswana

Limited data are available on patterns of resistance mutations in pediatric patients in southern Africa, where HIV-1 subtype C (HIV-1C) predominates. Retrospective chart review of pediatric patients. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)- and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-associated resistance mutations quantified from population-based sequencing genotypic resistance assay results taken at time of first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure (first-line ART = stavudine [d4T] or zidovudine [ZDV] + lamivudine [3TC] + nevirapine [NVP] or efavirenz [EFV]). Total number of patients with resistance assays analyzed is 45. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-associated mutation frequencies noted were M184V (n = 41; 91.1%); thymidine analogue mutations (TAMs; n = 20; 44.4%); >1 TAM (n = 9; 20%); TAM-2 pathway (n = 10; 22.2%); TAM-1 pathway (n = 7; 15.6%); TAM-1 and TAM-2 pathways (n = 3; 6.7%); K65R (n = 2; 4.4%); Q151M (n = 1; 2.2%); and L74V (n = 0; 0%). Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-associated mutation frequencies noted were associated with notable resistance to either/both NVP and EFV (n = 40; 88.9%); K103N (n = 15; 33.3%); ≥1 mutations associated with etravirine (ETR) failure (K101E, Y181C, and G190A; n =20; 44.4%); and ≥2 notable NNRTI mutations (n = 12; 26.7%). In this cohort, low-genetic barrier mutations were common, as were TAMs, including more than 1 TAM. Mutations compromising nonthymidine analogue backbones were rare, suggesting that it is likely that children who fail first-line NRTI backbones containing d4T or ZDV/3TC would still respond to abacavir (ABC), didanosine (ddI), and, for adolescents, tenofovir (TDF). Our data support the empiric continuation of 3TC in second-line regimens.

Effect of accompanying antiretroviral drugs on virological response to pegylated interferon and ribavirin in patients co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C virus

The effects of antiretroviral drugs on the response to pegylated interferon plus ribavirin remain uncertain. We evaluated whether antiretroviral drugs affected the response to pegylated interferon plus ribavirin in patients co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV). We conducted a retrospective analysis of two cohorts of HIV/HCV-co-infected patients treated with pegylated interferon plus ribavirin between 2001 and 2007 in Spain. The outcome measure was sustained virological response (SVR). Logistic regression models were used to test possible associations between non-response and pre-treatment characteristics, including accompanying antiretroviral drugs. The study sample comprised 1701 patients: 63% were infected with HCV genotype (G) 1 or 4 and 88% were taking highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Factors independently associated with increased odds of SVR were G2 or 3, HVC RNA <500,000 IU/mL and CDC clinical category A or B. When we adjusted for these prognostic factors and dose of ribavirin/kg, the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of SVR for patients without HAART was 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.88; P = 0.144]. Taking the backbone of tenofovir and lamivudine/emtricitabine as a reference, we found that, with the exception of regimens including zidovudine, the effect of other nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbones had little effect on SVR. The AOR of SVR for zidovudine and lamivudine was 0.65 (95% CI 0.46-0.93, P = 0.017). We carried out several sensitivity analyses, the results of which were consistent with the findings of the primary analysis. Our results suggest that, with the exception of regimens including zidovudine, accompanying antiretroviral drugs have little effect on the virological response to pegylated interferon plus ribavirin in HIV/HCV-co-infected patients.

Why We Do the Things We Do: ACTG 5202 and Our Choice of NRTIs

Initial antiretroviral therapy (ART) almost always consists of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus a third drug. For the NRTI backbone, current guidelines indicate a strong preference for tenofovir/FTC over abacavir/3TC, mainly because of virologic efficacy differences previously demonstrated in the ACTG 5202 study. In that 96-week trial, treatment-naive patients were stratified by viral load (< or ≥100,000 copies/mL) and randomized to receive either tenofovir/FTC or abacavir/3TC, each in combination with efavirenz or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir. Midway through the …

The Impact of Transmitted Drug-Resistance on Treatment Selection and Outcome of First-Line Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART)

The study aim was to determine how resistance testing influences outcome of first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in routine practice in the United Kingdom. The prevalence of transmitted drug resistance and the genotypic sensitivity score (GSS) of first-line HAART regimens were determined using data from the UK Collaborative HIV Cohort(CHIC) Study. Factors associated with starting a regimen with a reduced GSS and subsequent virological responses were analyzed by logistic and Cox regression. Amongst patients tested in 1999–2006, 116 of 1175 (10%) had $1 resistance mutation; 64 patients (5.4%) had $1 mutation associated with resistance to drugs in the initial HAART regimen and 54 (4.6%) showed a GSS, 3. Factors independently associated with a GSS, 3 were starting HAART in 1999–2001 vs. 2004–2006 (odds ratio = 2.63; 95% confidence interval: 1.19 to 5.83) and use of ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r)–based vs. nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor–based regimens (1.97; 1.06 to 3.64). AGSS .3 was independently associated with virological suppression(hazard ratio for GSS, 3 = 0.60; 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.87). Most patients starting HAART after undergoing resistance testing received regimens with a GSS $3. PI/r-based therapy was often selected in patients with resistance to the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Low GSS predicted poor virological suppression and the association persisted after adjusting for PI/r use.

Switching the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate + emtricitabine promptly improves triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in dyslipidaemic patients

To assess the impact of switching to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate + emtricitabine on lipid parameters. HIV-infected patients with plasma viral load <400 copies/mL, fasted triglycerides from 2.3 to 11.4 mmol/L and/or fasted low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol >4.1 mmol/L were randomized to switch the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone to fixed-dose combination tenofovir disoproxil fumarate + emtricitabine or to maintain the baseline antiretroviral regimen (the control group). The study has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT00323492. Ninety-one patients were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis with triglycerides 2.4 mmol/L and LDL-cholesterol 4.0 mmol/L (median values). At week 12, the median changes from baseline of triglycerides were -0.5 mmol/L (-25%; n = 46) and -0.1 mmol/L (-6%; n = 45) in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate + emtricitabine and control groups, respectively, indicating a difference of -0.4 mmol/L (P = 0.034) [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.9 to -0.0]. Similarly for LDL-cholesterol, changes of -0.4 mmol/L (-9%) and -0.1 mmol/L (-1%) were observed in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate + emtricitabine and control groups, respectively, indicating a difference of -0.4 mmol/L (P = 0.031) [95% CI: -0.7 to -0.0]. The proportion of patients with LDL-cholesterol >4.1 mmol/L decreased from 48% at baseline to 26% at week 12 in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate + emtricitabine group versus no change in the control group. No virological failure was observed during the study. Switching to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate + emtricitabine in dyslipidaemic HIV-infected patients improves triglycerides and LDL-cholesterol.

Successful Viral Suppression With Subsequent Efavirenz-Based Regimen in HIV-1-Infected Patients Who Stop Nevirapine Prior to Discontinuation of the NRTI Backbone

To study antiviral response of efavirenz (EFV)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) in HIV-1-infected patients who had previously discontinued nevirapine (NVP) and continued the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone for 7 to 14 days after stopping NVP. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients who discontinued NVP. CD4 count and plasma HIV-1 RNA levels were monitored through 48 weeks of EFV-based regimen. Forty-five patients were eligible with a mean +/- SD age of 37 +/- 11 years; 60% were males. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) baseline CD4 count was 43 (19-150) cells/mm³ and median (IQR) plasma HIV-1 RNA was 5.7 (5.3-5.9) log copies/mL. Median (IQR) duration from stopping NVP to initiating EFV was 13 (7-18) days. At 48 week, 33 (73.3%) of 45 patients achieved plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL. At week 12, 24, and 48, median CD4 counts were 193, 238, and 268 cells/mm³, respectively (P < .05). No studied risk factor was associated with achieving HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL at 48 weeks (P > .05). The strategy of extended short half-life NRTIs in the regimen after discontinuation of NVP is justified.

PENTA 2009 guidelines for the use of antiretroviral therapy in paediatric HIV‐1 infection

PENTA Guidelines aim to provide practical recommendations for treating children with HIV infection in Europe. Changes to guidance since 2004 have been informed by new evidence and by expectations of better outcomes following the ongoing success of antiretroviral therapy (ART). Participation in PENTA trials of simplifying treatment is encouraged. The main changes are in the following sections: 'When to start ART': Treatment is recommended for all infants, and at higher CD4 cell counts and percentages in older children, in line with changes to adult guidelines. The number of age bands has been reduced to simplify and harmonize with other paediatric guidelines. Greater emphasis is placed on CD4 cell count in children over 5 years, and guidance is provided where CD4% and CD4 criteria differ. 'What to start with': A three-drug regimen of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) with either a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) remains the first choice combination. Lamivudine and abacavir are the NRTI backbone of choice for most children, based on long-term follow-up in the PENTA 5 trial. Stavudine is no longer recommended. Whether to start with an NNRTI or PI remains unclear, but PENPACT 1 trial results in 2009 may help to inform this. All PIs should be ritonavir boosted. Recommendations on use of resistance testing, therapeutic drug monitoring and HLA testing draw from data in adults and from European paediatric cohort studies. Recently updated US and WHO paediatric guidelines provide more detailed review of the evidence base. Differences between guidelines are highlighted and explained.

Comparison of Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor Use as Part of First-Line Therapy in a Serbian and a UK HIV Clinic

Background: Use of dideoxynucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (dNRTIs) may lead to increased mitochondrial toxicity. We compared nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) use as part of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in two HIV clinics: one in a low-middle income (HIV Centre Belgrade [HCB], Serbia) and one a high income (ICDC, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK) country. Methods: Antiretroviralnaïve patients starting ART from 2003 to 2005 were included. Specifi c NRTIs were compared between centers, focusing on dNRTI use. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of patients making changes to their NRTI backbone (a) for any reason or (b) for mitochondrial toxicity (peripheral neuropathy, pancreatitis, lactic acidosis) were calculated. Results: Of 287 HCB patients, 89 (31.0%) received didanosine (ddI)-containing, 39 (13.6%) stavudine (d4T)-containing, and 39 (13.6%) ddI+d4Tcontaining regimens; for 539 ICDC patients, these were 18 (3.3%), 66 (12.2%), and 0 (0.0%), respectively (p < .0001). After 12 months, 57.5% and 52.6% at HCB and ICDC had switched their NRTI backbone. This was reduced to 34.5% at HCB after excluding changes due to drug supply interruption and to 11.2% and 1.3% at HCB and ICDC after changes were made for mitochondrial-related reasons. At 6 months, 73/80 (91.3%) and 385/488 (78.9%) had viral load below 50 copies/mL at HCB and ICDC, respectively. Conclusion: Patients treated at HCB faced higher levels of mitochondrial-related toxicity, likely due to greater dNRTI use.

Effects of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone on the efficacy of first-line boosted highly active antiretroviral therapy based on protease inhibitors: meta-regression analysis of 12 clinical trials in 5168 patients

Tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) and abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) are widely used with ritonavir (RTV)-boosted protease inhibitors (PIs) as first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), but there is conflicting evidence on their relative efficacy. The ACTG 5202 and BICOMBO trials suggested higher efficacy for TDF/FTC, whereas the HEAT trial showed no efficacy difference between the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbones. A systematic MEDLINE search identified 21 treatment arms in 12 clinical trials of 5168 antiretroviral-naïve patients, where TDF/FTC (n=3399) or ABC/3TC (n=1769) was used with RTV-boosted PI. For each NRTI backbone and RTV-boosted PI, the percentage of patients with viral load <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL at week 48 by standardized Intent to Treat, Time to Loss of Virological Failure (ITT TLOVR) analysis were combined using inverse-variance weighting. The effect of baseline HIV RNA, CD4 cell count and choice of NRTI backbone were examined using a weighted analysis of covariance. Across all the trials, HIV RNA suppression rates were significantly higher for those with baseline viral load below 100,000 copies/mL (77.2%) vs. above 100,000 copies/mL (70.9%) (P=0.0005). For the trials of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) and fosamprenavir/ritonavir (FAPV/r) using either TDF/FTC or ABC/3TC, the HIV RNA responses were significantly lower when ABC/3TC was used, relative to TDF/FTC, for all patients (P=0.0015) and for patients with baseline viral load <100,000 copies/mL (70.1%vs. 80.6%, P=0.0161), and was borderline for those with viral load >100,000 copies/mL (67.5%vs. 71.5%, P=0.0523). This systematic meta-regression analysis suggests higher efficacy for first-line use of a TDF/FTC NRTI backbone with boosted PIs, relative to use of ABC/3TC. However, this effect may be confounded by differences between the trials in terms of baseline characteristics, patient management or adherence.