Abacavir-lamivudine versus tenofovir-emtricitabine for initial HIV-1 therapy.

BACKGROUND The use of fixed-dose combination nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) with a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor is recommended as initial therapy in patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but which NRTI combination has greater efficacy and safety is not known. METHODS In a randomized, blinded equivalence study involving 1858 eligible patients, we compared four once-daily antiretroviral regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection: abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF)-emtricitabine plus efavirenz or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir. The primary efficacy end point was the time from randomization to virologic failure (defined as a confirmed HIV-1 RNA level > or = 1000 copies per milliliter at or after 16 weeks and before 24 weeks, or > or = 200 copies per milliliter at or after 24 weeks). RESULTS A scheduled interim review by an independent data and safety monitoring board showed significant differences in virologic efficacy, according to the NRTI combination, among patients with screening HIV-1 RNA levels of 100,000 copies per milliliter or more. At a median follow-up of 60 weeks, among the 797 patients with screening HIV-1 RNA levels of 100,000 copies per milliliter or more, the time to virologic failure was significantly shorter in the abacavir-lamivudine group than in the tenofovir DF-emtricitabine group (hazard ratio, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.46 to 3.72; P<0.001), with 57 virologic failures (14%) in the abacavir-lamivudine group versus 26 (7%) in the tenofovir DF-emtricitabine group. The time to the first adverse event was also shorter in the abacavir-lamivudine group (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the study groups in the change from the baseline CD4 cell count at week 48. CONCLUSIONS In patients with screening HIV-1 RNA levels of 100,000 copies per milliliter or more, the times to virologic failure and the first adverse event were both significantly shorter in patients randomly assigned to abacavir-lamivudine than in those assigned to tenofovir DF-emtricitabine. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00118898.)

[1]  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.

[2]  D. Richman,et al.  2022 update of the drug resistance mutations in HIV-1. , 2022, Topics in antiviral medicine.

[3]  Joel E Gallant,et al.  Tenofovir DF, emtricitabine, and efavirenz vs. zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz for HIV. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  B. Gazzard,et al.  British HIV Association (BHIVA) guidelines for the treatment of HIV‐infected adults with antiretroviral therapy (2005) , 2005, HIV medicine.

[5]  C. Leen,et al.  A randomized comparative trial of tenofovir DF or abacavir as replacement for a thymidine analogue in persons with lipoatrophy , 2006, AIDS.

[6]  J. van Lunzen,et al.  Efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients at week 48 , 2008, AIDS.

[7]  Peter Reiss,et al.  Antiretroviral treatment of adult HIV infection: 2008 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA panel. , 2008, JAMA.

[8]  D. Fine,et al.  Randomized, double-blind, placebo-matched, multicenter trial of abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine with lopinavir/ritonavir for initial HIV treatment , 2009, AIDS.

[9]  Colombe Chappey,et al.  Broad nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor cross-resistance in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 clinical isolates. , 2003, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[10]  N. Ghoraf Reliability formula & limit law of the failure time of “m-consecutive-k-out-of-n:F system” , 2008 .

[11]  Amalio Telenti,et al.  Antiretroviral Treatment of Adult HIV Infection2010 Recommendations of the International AIDS Society–USA Panel , 2010 .

[12]  S. Hammer,et al.  Abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine vs indinavir-lamivudine-zidovudine in antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults: A randomized equivalence trial. , 2001, JAMA.

[13]  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.

[14]  Steve A Castillo,et al.  Abacavir versus zidovudine combined with lamivudine and efavirenz, for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults. , 2004, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[15]  J. Montaner,et al.  Baseline HIV-1 RNA level and CD4 cell count predict time to loss of virologic response to nelfinavir, but not lopinavir/ritonavir, in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients. , 2004, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[16]  I. Sanne,et al.  Prospective randomized trial of emtricitabine versus lamivudine short-term monotherapy in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. , 2003, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[17]  Huldrych F Günthard,et al.  Update of the drug resistance mutations in HIV-1: Spring 2008. , 2008, Topics in HIV medicine : a publication of the International AIDS Society, USA.

[18]  B. Gazzard British HIV Association guidelines for the treatment of HIV‐1‐infected adults with antiretroviral therapy 2008 , 2005, HIV medicine.