Response to first protease inhibitor- and efavirenz-containing antiretroviral combination therapy. The Swiss HIV Cohort Study
Details
Serval ID
serval:BIB_BF7702ACC5A7
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Response to first protease inhibitor- and efavirenz-containing antiretroviral combination therapy. The Swiss HIV Cohort Study
Journal
AIDS
ISSN
0269-9370 (Print)
Publication state
Published
Issued date
09/2001
Volume
15
Number
14
Pages
1793-800
Notes
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't --- Old month value: Sep 28
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't --- Old month value: Sep 28
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the response to protease inhibitor (PI) and efavirenz-containing combination therapy among treatment-naive HIV-infected persons. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. METHODS: Response to treatment was analysed according to the intent-to-treat principle among antiretroviral-naive patients who started either efavirenz (n = 89) or PI (n = 183) plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors between February 1999 and March 2000 using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression methods. Primary endpoint was time to undetectable plasma viral load. Secondary endpoints included the number of CD4 cells gained, virological rebound, treatment change, and clinical progression. RESULTS: Patients on PI regimens had lower median CD4 counts (165 versus 216 x 5 106/l; P = 0.15) and were more likely to have AIDS at initiation of treatment (25% versus 15% P = 0.048) than patients starting efavirenz regimens. The probability of reaching plasma HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/ml was higher with efavirenz- than with PI-containing regimens [adjusted hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34-2.29]. Median times to undetectable viral load were 58 days (95% CI, 44-70 days) for efavirenz-treated and 88 days (95% CI, 79-98 days) for PI-treated patients. The median number of CD4 cells gained in the first 6 months (90 x 10(6) cells/l with efavirenz, 10(7) x 10(6) cells/l with PI; P = 0.63), time to and reasons for treatment change, time to viral rebound, drug intolerance and clinical progression rates were similar in the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with efavirenz-, compared with PI-based regimens, appeared to result in a superior virological response but no difference in immunological or clinical efficacy. The relevance of these observations remains to be determined in studies with longer follow-up.
Keywords
Adult
Aged
Anti-HIV Agents/*therapeutic use
CD4 Lymphocyte Count
Cohort Studies
Drug Therapy, Combination
Female
HIV Infections/*drug therapy
HIV Protease Inhibitors/*therapeutic use
HIV-1/physiology
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Oxazines/*therapeutic use
Prospective Studies
RNA, Viral/blood
Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors/*therapeutic use
Treatment Outcome
Viral Load
Pubmed
Web of science
Create date
25/01/2008 14:46
Last modification date
20/08/2019 15:33