Comparison of sequential three-drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection. High rate of early virological failure with the once-daily tenofovir/lamivudine/nevirapine combination in naive HIV-1-infected patients. Abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine maintenance after standard induction in antiretroviral therapy-naïve patients: FREE randomized trial interim results. A randomized trial of simplified maintenance therapy with abacavir, lamivudine, and zidovudine in human immunodeficiency virus infection. A randomized trial to evaluate continuation versus discontinuation of lamivudine in individuals failing a lamivudine-containing regimen: the COLATE trial. Antiretroviral treatment simplification with 3 NRTIs or 2 NRTIs plus nevirapine in HIV-1-infected patients treated with successful first-line HAART. Better maintained adherence on switching from twice-daily to once-daily therapy for HIV: a 24-week randomized trial of treatment simplification using stavudine prolonged-release capsules. Simplification with abacavir-based triple nucleoside therapy versus continued protease inhibitor-based highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected patients with undetectable plasma HIV-1 RNA. Impact of an educational program on efficacy and adherence with a twice-daily lamivudine/zidovudine/abacavir regimen in underrepresented HIV-infected patients.
The optimal sequencing of antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) is unknown. We compared several different antiretroviral treatment strategies.
                This multicenter, randomized, partially double-blind trial used a factorial design to compare pairs of sequential three-drug regimens, starting with a regimen including zidovudine and lamivudine or a regimen including didanosine and stavudine in combination with either nelfinavir or efavirenz. The primary end point was the length of time to the failure of the second three-drug regimen.
                A total of 620 subjects who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were followed for a median of 2.3 years. Starting with a three-drug regimen containing efavirenz combined with zidovudine and lamivudine (but not efavirenz combined with didanosine and stavudine) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with a regimen containing nelfinavir (hazard ratio for failure of the second regimen, 0.71; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.48 to 1.06), as well as to delay the second virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.09), and significantly delayed the failure of the first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.39) and the first virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.34). Starting with zidovudine and lamivudine combined with efavirenz (but not zidovudine and lamivudine combined with nelfinavir) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with didanosine and stavudine (hazard ratio, 0.68), and significantly delayed both the first and the second virologic failures (hazard ratio for the first virologic failure, 0.39; hazard ratio for the second virologic failure, 0.47), as well as the failure of the first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.35). The initial use of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz resulted in a shorter time to viral suppression.
                The efficacy of antiretroviral drugs depends on how they are combined. The combination of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz is superior to the other antiretroviral regimens used as initial therapy in this study.
                Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society The combination of one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors is a validated first-line antiretroviral (ARV) therapy. The once-daily combination of lamivudine, tenofovirDF and nevirapine has not been evaluated in a clinical trial.
                Randomized, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority trial comparing lamivudine, tenofovirDF and nevirapine once daily (Group 2) with zidovudine/lamivudine and nevirapine twice daily (Group 1), in naive HIV-1-infected patients with a CD4 count <350/mm(3). We planned to enroll 250 patients.
                As of May 2006, 71 patients had been enrolled (35 in Group 1 and 36 in Group 2) and an unplanned interim analysis was done. The groups were comparable at baseline: median CD4 count was 195 and 191/mm(3) and median plasma viral load was 4.9 log(10) and 5.01 log(10), respectively, in Groups 1 and 2. Eight early non-responses (22.2%) were observed, all in Group 2, while two later viral rebounds occurred. Resistance genotypes for the nine Group 2 failing patients showed the mutations M184V/I (n = 3), K65R (n = 6), one or more NNRTI resistance mutations in all cases. At baseline, the nine Group 2 patients who failed had higher median plasma viral load (5.4 log(10)) and lower median CD4 count (110/mm(3)) than the other Group 2 patients (4.7 log(10), P = 0.002 and 223/mm(3), P = 0.004). Nevirapine trough concentrations were not different between the two groups, nor between patients with full viral suppression or those who failed in Group 2. Due to slow recruitment, and those results, the steering committee decided to stop the trial at 12 months.
                In ARV-naive HIV-1-infected patients, the once-daily lamivudine, tenofovirDF and nevirapine regimen resulted in a high rate of early virological failures. The reasons for the failures remain unclear. Maintenance with a triple nucleoside reverse transcriptase Inhibitor (NRTI) regimen after successful induction with a dual NRTI/protease inhibitor (PI) combination may be advantageous, because of low pill burden, favorable lipids, and less drug interactions. This strategy to become free of PI-related problems without losing viral efficacy has not been formally tested. We performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter, 96-week comparative study in antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve patients with CD4 <or=350 cells/mm(3) and HIV-1 RNA concentrations (viral load [VL]) greater than 30,000 copies per milliliter. Patients were randomized after reaching VL less than 50 copies per milliliter on two consecutive occasions between 12 and 24 weeks after start of zidovudine/lamuvidine and lopinavir/ritonavir combination. Eligible subjects switched to abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine (TZV) or continued the PI-containing regimen. Here we present the 48-week data with virologic success rate (failure: VL > 50 copies per milliliter). Two hundred seven patients had similar baseline (BL) characteristics: median CD4 180 cells/mm(3), median VL 5.19 log(10) copies per milliliter. One hundred twenty subjects (58%) met randomization criteria. Baseline VL differed significantly between dropouts and randomized subjects (median 5.41 versus 5.06 log(10) copies per milliliter, p = 0.017), as did CD4 cells (median 160 and 200 cells/mm(3), p = 0.044). Sixty-one subjects received TZV and 59 subjects continued NRTIs/PI. At week 48, 2 patients in the TZV group and 5 in the PI group did not have a sustained virologic suppression (log rank test; p = 0.379). CD4 counts increased significantly in both arms. In ART-naïve patients, TZV maintenance had similar antiviral efficacy compared to continued standard ART at 48 weeks after baseline. Patients on successful standard ART can be safely switched to a NRTI-only regimen, at least for the tested time period. This randomized study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of continued treatment with protease inhibitor plus nucleoside-analogue combination regimens (n=79) or a change to the simplified regimen of abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine (n=84) in patients with suppressed human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA for > or = 6 months who did not have the reverse transcriptase 215 mutation. After a median follow-up of 84 weeks, virologic failure was 6% in the continuation and 15% in the simplified group (P=.081). Previous zidovudine monotherapy or dual therapy and archived reverse transcriptase resistance mutations in HIV-1 DNA at baseline were significant predictors of failure. Study treatment was discontinued because of adverse events in 20% of the continuation and 7% of the simplified group (P=.021). Simplification to abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine significantly decreased nonfasting cholesterol and triglyceride levels; however, this switch strategy carries a risk of virologic failure when treatment history or resistance testing suggest the presence of archived resistance mutations to the simplified regimen. Lamivudine (3TC) therapy can cause the emergence of M1841/V. Previous studies suggest a higher fidelity of the mutant reverse transcriptase and lower replication capacity of the mutant virus. No data exist from clinical comparative studies evaluating the benefit of M1841/V in patients receiving combination antiretroviral therapy (cART).
                HIV-1-infected adults failing a 3TC-containing regimen were randomized to continue (On-3TC) or discontinue 3TC (Off-3TC) whilst receiving cART. The primary efficacy measure was the log10 average-area-under-the-curve-minus-baseline reduction in HIV RNA over 48 weeks. Cryopreserved plasma samples from patients with baseline and > or =1 follow-up sample with HIV RNA >500 copies/ml were sequenced for a nucleotide distances substudy. Evolutionary distances were compared between treatment arms and between viruses with and without M1841/V.
                The overall 48-week log10 HIV RNA change was -1.4 (95% CI: -1.6, -1.1) for On-3TC (n=65) and -1.5 (95% CI: -1.7, -1.2) for Off-3TC (n=66; P=0.51). No difference was seen in the magnitude of the CD4+ T-cell count increases (median increase: 87 vs 76 cells/ml for 3TC vs Off-3TC, respectively). Thirty-seven patients had baseline and follow-up sequencing. Overall, there were 1.2 (95% CI: -2.2, 4.6) more nucleotide substitutions from baseline for Off-3TC patients (P=0.50), and 10.7 (95% CI: 7.5, 14.0) fewer nucleotide changes in viruses containing M18411V (P<0.0001).
                This study found no added virological or immunological benefit of continuing 3TC in patients on cART harbouring M1841/V. Evolutionary distances from baseline were larger in viruses that did not contain M1841/V. More discernable benefits may be seen in patients with fewer drug options as potent cART may eclipse a benefit of M1841/V in COLATE. To assess the virologic noninferiority of an antiretroviral treatment simplification with coformulated zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir (group 1) vs. coformulated zidovudine/lamivudine plus nevirapine (group 2) in HIV-1-infected patients receiving successful first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy.
                This is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, comparative, randomized, noninferiority study. A delta of 15% for differences in virologic suppression <200 copies/mL between groups was prespecified with a 1-sided 0.025 significance level.
                A total of 134 patients were included into this study: 68 were allocated to group 1 and 66 to group 2. By intention-to-treat analysis (switch equals failure), the percentage of virologic suppression <200 copies/mL (<50 copies/mL) at week 48 was 71.0% (65.1%) and 73.0% (63.3%) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (estimate for differences [<200 copies/mL]: -2.1, 95% CI: -17.4-13.1, P=0.783). Thirteen and 14 patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively, discontinued therapy due to adverse events. Dyslipidemia improved in both groups, with a higher improvement in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P=0.049) in group 1.
                Group 1 is not inferior to group 2 regarding virologic suppression <200 copies/mL. Both strategies improve lipid profile. Adherence to antiretroviral therapy is critical to treatment outcomes. Adherence studies in other therapeutic areas of medicine suggest that once-daily regimens support improved adherence when compared to twice-daily therapy. An expansion in the range of once-daily antiretrovirals is making once-daily therapy possible for persons with HIV infection.
                A 24-week randomized open-label simplification study of twice-daily regimens based on stavudine immediate release or zidovudine to an all once-daily regimen based on the stavudine prolonged-release capsule (PRC), in persons with complete virological suppression on regimens also including efavirenz and lamivudine, was carried out. Subjects were assessed for adherence [using the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) cap; Aardex Corporation, Union City, CA, USA], quality of life, tolerability and efficacy.
                Forty-three patients were randomly assigned: 21 remained on their original regimen and 22 switched to once-daily therapy with stavudine PRC. Although high levels of adherence and good quality of life were present at study enrollment, adherence declined to a significantly lesser extent at week 24 in the group that switched to once-daily therapy. Efficacy was maintained in both groups and there were no differences in tolerability or toxicity.
                Subjects switching from twice-daily therapy to once-daily therapy demonstrate less of a decline in adherence over 24 weeks. A once-daily regimen including stavudine PRC is as effective and tolerable as a regimen containing the twice-daily formulation. To assess the antiviral efficacy, safety and adherence in patients switched to an abacavir-containing nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) regimen after long-term HIV-1 RNA suppression with a dual NRTI/protease inhibitor (PI) combination.
                In an open-label, multicentre study, patients receiving 2NRTI plus PI for at least 6 months, with a history of undetectable plasma HIV-1 RNA since the initiation of therapy and plasma HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/ml at screening, were randomly assigned to replace the PI with abacavir (n = 105) or continue the same treatment (n = 106). Clinical assessments included plasma HIV-1 RNA, chemistry, haematology, lymphocyte counts, and adverse event reports. Adherence to treatment was assessed by patient self-report.
                A significantly longer time to treatment failure was demonstrated in the abacavir arm compared with the PI arm (P = 0.03) while treatment failure was experienced by significantly more patients in the PI arm: 24 (23%) versus 12 (12%) (P = 0.03). Therapy-limiting toxicity led to treatment failure in eight versus 14 cases in the abacavir and PI arms, respectively, whereas virological rebound was the cause in four versus two cases. Significant reductions in cholesterol and non-fasting triglyceride plasma levels at 48 weeks were observed in the abacavir arm (P < 0.001 andP = 0.035, respectively). The number of patients reporting no difficulty in taking their therapy showed a marked increase from baseline in the abacavir arm.
                The replacement of PI by abacavir in a triple combination regimen following prolonged suppression of plasma HIV-1 RNA provides continued virological suppression, significant improvements in lipid abnormalities and enhanced ease of dosing. A 24-week open-label clinical trial was conducted in 195 HIV-infected adults commonly underrepresented in research (35% female, 71% African American, 21% Hispanic, and 20% injection drug users [IDUs]) to evaluate the effect of an HIV educational program on efficacy and adherence with a simple, compact, twice-daily triple nucleoside regimen containing a lamivudine (150 mg)/zidovudine (300 mg) combination (COM) tablet plus abacavir (ABC), 300 mg. At baseline, the patients' median plasma HIV-1 RNA level was 4.18 log10 copies/mL and the median CD4+ cell count was 379 cells/mm3. Patients were randomized 1:1 to 4 modules of the Tools for Health and Empowerment HIV education intervention plus routine counseling (EI + RC; n = 96) or to routine counseling alone (RC; n = 99). No differences between the EI + RC and RC treatment arms were observed with respect to the proportion of patients achieving plasma HIV-1 RNA levels <40 copies/mL (60% [33/55] vs. 55% [38/69]; P = 0.529) or <400 copies/mL (80% [44/55] vs. 80% [55/69]; P = 0.689) at week 24 (intent-to-treat observed analysis), increase in median CD4 cell count above baseline at week 24 (78.3 vs. 104.8 cells/mm3; P = 0.498), or mean overall adherence rates as measured by the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) (70% vs. 74%). COM + ABC was generally well tolerated, and no association was observed between interruptions in treatment and the development of ABC hypersensitivity (5 suspected cases). In conclusion, in underrepresented patients, the EI used in this study did not affect the efficacy and adherence results with ABC + COM to any greater degree than did RC.
There is limited evidence to evaluate second-line therapies in patients with HIV who fail first-line treatment with a WHO-recommended regimen. One randomised trial in 136 patients and two observational studies (both of low quality) suggest no difference in virological suppression whether or not lamivudine is maintained in a second-line regimen. While outcomes of second-line regimens with boosted PIs are favourable in general, there are no studies comparing boosted PIs directly in populations starting second-line regimens. Current recommendations are based on available resources and patient- and public-health-level considerations.