Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: not found

Clinical, virologic, and immunologic response to efavirenz-or protease inhibitor-based highly active antiretroviral therapy in a cohort of antiretroviral-naive patients with advanced HIV infection (EfaVIP 2 study).

Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (1999)

therapeutic use, Adult, Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active, Benzoxazines, CD4 Lymphocyte Count, Cohort Studies, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, HIV Infections, drug therapy, mortality, physiopathology, HIV Protease Inhibitors, Humans, Male, Oxazines, Retrospective Studies, Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors

Read this article at

ScienceOpenPubMed
Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      To compare the clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes of efavirenz (EFV)-based versus protease inhibitor (PI)-based highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in severely immunosuppressed HIV-1-infected patients. Retrospective observational cohort study. Responses were analyzed according to the intent-to-treat principle among antiretroviral-naive patients with < 100 CD4 cells/muL who started EFV (n = 92) or a PI (n = 218) plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. The primary end point was time to treatment failure. Secondary end points were percentage of patients with a viral load < 400 copies/mL, time to virologic failure, time to CD4 lymphocyte count > 200 cells/microL, and incidence of opportunistic events or death. The median baseline CD4 cell count and viral load were 34 cells/microL and 5.54 log10 copies/mL (EFV group) and 38 cells/microL and 5.40 log10 copies/mL (PI group). Time to treatment failure was shorter with a PI-based regimen than with an EFV-based regimen (adjusted relative hazard [RH] = 2.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-3.89). After 12 months of therapy, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving EFV reached a viral load < 400 copies/mL (69.4 vs. 45.1%; P < 0.05). The probability of virologic failure was higher with a PI than with EFV (adjusted HR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.14-5.61; P = 0.024). There was no difference in time to CD4 cell count > 200 cells/microL or in incidence of opportunistic events or death. : In severely immunosuppressed, antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients, treatment with an EFV-based regimen compared with a nonboosted PI-based regimen resulted in a superior virologic response with no difference in immunologic or clinical effectiveness.

      Related collections

      Author and article information

      Journal
      15097150

      Comments

      Comment on this article