Efavirenz or nevirapine in three-drug combination therapy with two nucleoside or nucleotide-reverse transcriptase inhibitors for initial treatment of HIV infection in antiretroviral-naïve individuals

BACKGROUND

The advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (ART) has reduced the morbidity and mortality due to HIV infection. The World Health Organization (WHO) ART guidelines focus on three classes of antiretroviral drugs, namely nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) and protease inhibitors. Two of the most common medications given as first-line treatment are the NNRTIs, efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP). It is unclear which NNRTI is more efficacious for initial therapy. This systematic review was first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, either EFV or NVP, is more effective in suppressing viral load when given in combination with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors as part of initial antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We attempted to identify all relevant studies, regardless of language or publication status, in electronic databases and conference proceedings up to 12 August 2016. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to 12 August 2016. We searched LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) and the Web of Science from 1996 to 12 August 2016. We checked the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Gateway from 1996 to 2009, as it was no longer available after 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EFV to NVP in people with HIV without prior exposure to ART, irrespective of the dosage or NRTI's given in combination.The primary outcome of interest was virological success. Other primary outcomes included mortality, clinical progression to AIDS, severe adverse events, and discontinuation of therapy for any reason. Secondary outcomes were change in CD4 count, treatment failure, development of ART drug resistance, and prevention of sexual transmission of HIV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed each reference for inclusion using exclusion criteria that we had established a priori. Two review authors independently extracted data from each included trial using a standardized data extraction form. We analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis. We performed subgroup analyses for concurrent treatment for tuberculosis and dosage of NVP. We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve RCTs, which included 3278 participants, met our inclusion criteria. None of these trials included children. The length of follow-up time, study settings, and NRTI combination drugs varied greatly. In five included trials, participants were receiving concurrent treatment for tuberculosis.There was little or no difference between EFV and NVP in virological success (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.09; 10 trials, 2438 participants; high quality evidence), probably little or no difference in mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.19; 8 trials, 2317 participants; moderate quality evidence) and progression to AIDS (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.11; 5 trials, 2005 participants; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in all severe adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 8 trials, 2329 participants; very low quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference in discontinuation rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.25; 9 trials, 2384 participants; moderate quality evidence) and change in CD4 count (MD -3.03; 95% CI -17.41 to 11.35; 9 trials, 1829 participants; moderate quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in treatment failure (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.24; 5 trials, 737 participants; low quality evidence). Development of drug resistance is probably slightly less in the EFV arms (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; 4 trials, 988 participants; moderate quality evidence). No studies were found that looked at sexual transmission of HIV.When we examined the adverse events individually, EFV probably is associated with more people with impaired mental function (7 per 1000) compared to NVP (2 per 1000; RR 4.46, 95% CI 1.65 to 12.03; 6 trials, 2049 participants; moderate quality evidence) but fewer people with elevated transaminases (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.78; 3 trials, 1299 participants; high quality evidence), fewer people with neutropenia (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; 3 trials, 1799 participants; high quality evidence), and probably fewer people withrash (229 per 100 with NVP versus 133 per 1000 with EFV; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.00; 7 trials, 2277 participants; moderate quality evidence). We found that there may be little or no difference in gastrointestinal adverse events (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.21; 6 trials, 2049 participants; low quality evidence), pyrexia (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.73; 3 trials, 1799 participants; low quality evidence), raised alkaline phosphatase (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.50; 1 trial, 1007 participants; low quality evidence), raised amylase (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.73; 2 trials, 1071 participants; low quality evidence) and raised triglycerides (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.13; 2 trials, 1071 participants; low quality evidence). There was probably little or no difference in serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT; MD 3.3, 95% CI -2.06 to 8.66; 1 trial, 135 participants; moderate quality evidence), serum glutamic- pyruvic transaminase (SGPT; MD 5.7, 95% CI -4.23 to 15.63; 1 trial, 135 participants; moderate quality evidence) and raised cholesterol (RR 6.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 48.78; 1 trial, 64 participants; moderate quality evidence).Our subgroup analyses revealed that NVP slightly increases mortality when given once daily (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.90; 3 trials, 678 participants; high quality evidence). There were little or no differences in the primary outcomes for patients who were concurrently receiving treatment for tuberculosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both drugs have similar benefits in initial treatment of HIV infection when combined with two NRTIs. The adverse events encountered affect different systems, with EFV more likely to cause central nervous system adverse events and NVP more likely to raise transaminases, cause neutropenia and rash.

Comparative efficacy and safety of first-line antiretroviral therapy for the treatment of HIV infection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

New antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens for HIV could improve clinical outcomes for patients. To inform global guidelines, we aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of recommended ART regimens for HIV in ART-naive patients.

METHODS

For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched for randomised clinical trials published up to July 5, 2015, comparing recommended antiretroviral regimens in treatment-naive adults and adolescents (aged 12 years or older) with HIV. We extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: viral suppression, mortality, AIDS defining illnesses, discontinuations, discontinuations due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We synthesised data using network meta-analyses in a Bayesian framework and included older treatments, such as indinavir, to serve as connecting nodes. We defined network nodes in terms of specific antivirals rather than specific ART regimens. We categorised backbone regimens and adjusted for them through group-specific meta-regression. We used the GRADE framework to interpret the strength of inference.

FINDINGS

We identified 5865 citations through database searches and other sources, of which, 126 articles related to 71 unique trials were included in the network analysis, including 34 032 patients randomly assigned to 161 treatment groups. For viral suppression at 48 weeks, compared with efavirenz, the odds ratio (OR) for viral suppression was 1·87 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·34-2·64) with dolutegravir and 1·40 (1·02-1·96) with raltegravir; with respect to viral suppression, low-dose efavirenz was similar to all other treatments. Both low-dose efavirenz and integrase strand transfer inhibitors tended to be protective of discontinuations due to adverse events relative to normal-dose efavirenz. The most protective effect relative to efavirenz in network meta-analyses was that of dolutegravir (OR 0·26, 95% CrI 0·14-0·47), followed by low-dose efavirenz (0·39, 0·16-0·92). Owing to insufficient data, we could make no conclusions about serious adverse events. Low event rates also limited the quality of evidence with regard to mortality and AIDS defining illnesses.

INTERPRETATION

The efficacy and safety of ART has substantially improved with the introduction of newer drug classes of antiretrovirals that are now available to patients and HIV care providers. Their improved tolerance could be part of a larger solution to improve retention, which is a challenge, particularly in low-income and middle-income country settings.

FUNDING

The World Health Organization.

Optimal Treatment Strategies in the Context of 'Treatment for Prevention' against HIV-1 in Resource-Poor Settings

An estimated 2.7 million new HIV-1 infections occurred in 2010. `Treatment-for-prevention’ may strongly prevent HIV-1 transmission. The basic idea is that immediate treatment initiation rapidly decreases virus burden, which reduces the number of transmittable viruses and thereby the probability of infection. However, HIV inevitably develops drug resistance, which leads to virus rebound and nullifies the effect of `treatment-for-prevention’ for the time it remains unrecognized. While timely conducted treatment changes may avert periods of viral rebound, necessary treatment options and diagnostics may be lacking in resource-constrained settings. Within this work, we provide a mathematical platform for comparing different treatment paradigms that can be applied to many medical phenomena. We use this platform to optimize two distinct approaches for the treatment of HIV-1: (i) a diagnostic-guided treatment strategy, based on infrequent and patient-specific diagnostic schedules and (ii) a pro-active strategy that allows treatment adaptation prior to diagnostic ascertainment. Both strategies are compared to current clinical protocols (standard of care and the HPTN052 protocol) in terms of patient health, economic means and reduction in HIV-1 onward transmission exemplarily for South Africa. All therapeutic strategies are assessed using a coarse-grained stochastic model of within-host HIV dynamics and pseudo-codes for solving the respective optimal control problems are provided. Our mathematical model suggests that both optimal strategies (i)-(ii) perform better than the current clinical protocols and no treatment in terms of economic means, life prolongation and reduction of HIV-transmission. The optimal diagnostic-guided strategy suggests rare diagnostics and performs similar to the optimal pro-active strategy. Our results suggest that ‘treatment-for-prevention’ may be further improved using either of the two analyzed treatment paradigms.

HIV-1 continues to spread globally. Antiviral treatment cannot cure patients, but it slows disease progression and may prevent HIV transmission by decreasing the amount of transmittable viruses in treated individuals. ‘Treatment-for-prevention’ argues for immediate treatment initiation and may reduce transmission by 96% (CI: 73–99%), according to the results of a large clinical study (HPTN052). In order to ensure long-lasting treatment success, early therapy initiation demands more sophisticated treatment strategies & exceeding funds. However, countries facing the highest HIV burden are among the poorest. Within this work, we provide a mathematical framework that allows assessing different treatment paradigms using optimal control theory together with stochastic modelling of within-host viral dynamics and drug resistance development. We use this framework to compute and evaluate two distinct optimal long-term treatment strategies for resource-constrained settings: (i) a diagnostic-guided and (ii) a pro-active treatment strategy. The cost of a strategy is evaluated from a national economic perspective, valuating a severe patient health status in terms of an economic loss. The optimal strategies are compared with current clinical treatment protocols and no treatment in terms of costs, life expectation and reduction of secondary cases. Our simulations indicate that the pro-active treatment strategy performs comparably to the diagnostic-guided treatment strategy. Both strategies perform better than current clinical protocols, suggesting directions for improvement.