Three- vs four-drug antiretroviral regimens for the initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT Three-drug antiretroviral regimens are standard of care for initial treatment of human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1) infection, but a 4-drug regimen could improve antiretroviral activity and be more effective than a 3-drug regimen. OBJECTIVE To compare the safety/efficacy of 3-drug vs 4-drug regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. DESIGN The AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) A5095 study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with enrollment and follow-up conducted from March 22, 2001, to March 1, 2005, and enrolling treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients with HIV-1 RNA levels of 400 copies/mL or greater from US clinical trials units of the ACTG. INTERVENTIONS Zidovudine/lamivudine plus efavirenz (3-drug regimen) vs zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir plus efavirenz (4-drug regimen). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Time to virologic failure (defined as time to first of 2 successive HIV-1 RNA levels > or =200 copies/mL at or after week 16), CD4 cell count changes, and grade 3 or 4 adverse events. HIV-1 RNA data were intent-to-treat, regardless of treatment changes. RESULTS Seven hundred sixty-five patients with a baseline mean HIV-1 RNA level of 4.86 log10 (72,444) copies/mL and CD4 cell count of 240 cells/mm3 were randomized. After a median 3-year follow-up, 99 (26%) of 382 and 94 (25%) of 383 patients receiving the 3-drug and 4-drug regimens, respectively, reached protocol-defined virologic failure; time to virologic failure was not significantly different (hazard ratio, 0.95; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.69-1.33; P = .73). In planned subgroup analyses, increased risk for virologic failure was seen in non-Hispanic black patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.34; P = .003). At 3 years, the HIV-1 RNA level was less than 200 copies/mL in 152 (90%) of 169 and 143 (92%) of 156 patients receiving the 3-drug and 4-drug regimens, respectively (P = .59), and less than 50 copies/mL in 144 (85%) of 169 and 137 (88%) of 156 patients (P = .39). CD4 cell count increases and grade 3 or 4 adverse events were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS In treatment-naive patients, there were no significant differences between the 3-drug and 4-drug antiretroviral regimens; overall, at least approximately 80% of patients had HIV-1 RNA levels less than 50 copies/mL through 3 years. These results support current guidelines recommending 2 nucleosides plus efavirenz for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection; adding abacavir as a fourth drug provided no additional benefit. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00013520.

[1]  P. Grambsch,et al.  Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals , 1994 .

[2]  A. Wu,et al.  Self-reported adherence to antiretroviral medications among participants in HIV clinical trials: The AACTG Adherence Instruments , 2000, AIDS care.

[3]  G. Satten,et al.  Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. HIV Outpatient Study Investigators. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[5]  James Curran,et al.  Scaling Up Antiretroviral Therapy in Resource-Limited Settings: Treatment Guidelines for a Public Health Approach , 2005 .

[6]  Victor De Gruttola,et al.  Comparison of sequential three-drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  S. Hammer,et al.  A randomized trial of 2 different 4-drug antiretroviral regimens versus a 3-drug regimen, in advanced human immunodeficiency virus disease. , 2003, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[8]  D. Cooper,et al.  Virological and immunological outcomes at 3 years after starting antiretroviral therapy with regimens containing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, protease inhibitor, or both in INITIO: open-label randomised trial , 2006, The Lancet.

[9]  Catia Marzolini,et al.  Pharmacogenetics of efavirenz and central nervous system side effects: an Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group study , 2004, AIDS.

[10]  Christopher D Pilcher,et al.  Triple-nucleoside regimens versus efavirenz-containing regimens for the initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  S. Hammer,et al.  Nelfinavir, efavirenz, or both after the failure of nucleoside treatment of HIV infection. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  P. Kissinger,et al.  Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  M. King,et al.  Long-term safety and durable antiretroviral activity of lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive patients: 4 year follow-up study , 2004, AIDS.

[14]  J Witek,et al.  Residual HIV-1 RNA in blood plasma of patients taking suppressive highly active antiretroviral therapy. , 1999, JAMA.

[15]  E A Emini,et al.  Treatment with indinavir, zidovudine, and lamivudine in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection and prior antiretroviral therapy. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Alan S Perelson,et al.  Intensification of Antiretroviral Therapy Accelerates the Decay of the HIV-1 Latent Reservoir and Decreases, But Does Not Eliminate, Ongoing Virus Replication , 2004, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[17]  S. Mallal,et al.  Clinical and immunogenetic correlates of abacavir hypersensitivity , 2005, AIDS.

[18]  Christine Hogan,et al.  Determining the relative efficacy of highly active antiretroviral therapy. , 2003, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[19]  O. Castro,et al.  Benign ethnic neutropenia: what is a normal absolute neutrophil count? , 1999, The Journal of laboratory and clinical medicine.

[20]  K. Tashima,et al.  Efavirenz plus zidovudine and lamivudine, efavirenz plus indinavir, and indinavir plus zidovudine and lamivudine in the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults. Study 006 Team. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  Alan S. Perelson,et al.  A Novel Antiviral Intervention Results in More Accurate Assessment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Replication Dynamics and T-Cell Decay In Vivo , 2003, Journal of Virology.

[22]  Gene D Morse,et al.  Comparison of four-drug regimens and pairs of sequential three-drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  C. Moore,et al.  Association between presence of HLA-B*5701, HLA-DR7, and HLA-DQ3 and hypersensitivity to HIV-1 reverse-transcriptase inhibitor abacavir , 2002, The Lancet.

[24]  E. Caumes,et al.  Hypersensitivity syndrome associated with efavirenz therapy. , 2000, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[25]  P. Massip,et al.  Impact of protease inhibitors on AIDS‐defining events and hospitalizations in 10 French AIDS reference centres , 1997, AIDS.

[26]  M A Fischl,et al.  A controlled trial of two nucleoside analogues plus indinavir in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection and CD4 cell counts of 200 per cubic millimeter or less. AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 Study Team. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  C. A. Macken,et al.  Persistence of HIV-1 transcription in peripheral-blood mononuclear cells in patients receiving potent antiretroviral therapy. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  J. J. Henning,et al.  Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-Infected Adults and Adolescents, January 28, 2000 , 1998, HIV clinical trials.

[29]  Victoria A Johnson,et al.  Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1: 2003 recommendations of an International AIDS Society-USA Panel. , 2003, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[30]  L. Calza,et al.  First-line efavirenz versus lopinavir–ritonavir-based highly active antiretroviral therapy for naïve patients , 2004, AIDS.

[31]  V. Soriano,et al.  Different degree of immune recovery using antiretroviral regimens with protease inhibitors or non-nucleosides , 2002, AIDS.

[32]  F. Wit,et al.  Improved long-term suppression of HIV-1 replication with a triple-class multidrug regimen compared with standard of care antiretroviral therapy , 2002, AIDS.

[33]  C. Tinelli,et al.  Exploratory analysis for the evaluation of lopinavir/ritonavir-versus efavirenz-based HAART regimens in antiretroviral-naive HIV-positive patients: results from the Italian MASTER Cohort. , 2005, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[34]  Joel E Gallant,et al.  Efficacy and safety of tenofovir DF vs stavudine in combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive patients: a 3-year randomized trial. , 2004, JAMA.

[35]  S. Hammer,et al.  Treatment for adult HIV infection: 2004 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA Panel. , 2004, JAMA.

[36]  P. Clay The abacavir hypersensitivity reaction: a review. , 2002, Clinical therapeutics.

[37]  H. Schuitemaker,et al.  Alternative multidrug regimen provides improved suppression of HIV‐1 replication over triple therapy , 1998, AIDS.