Nevirapine/zidovudine/lamivudine has superior immunological and virological responses not reflected in clinical outcomes in a 48-week randomized comparison with abacavir/zidovudine/lamivudine in HIV-infected Ugandan adults with low CD4 cell counts

HIV Med. 2010 May;11(5):334-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1293.2009.00786.x. Epub 2010 Feb 3.

Abstract

Background: Triple nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor regimens have advantages as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART), avoiding hepatotoxicity and interactions with anti-tuberculosis therapy, and sparing two drug classes for second-line ART. Concerns exist about virological potency; efficacy has not been assessed in Africa.

Methods: A safety trial comparing nevirapine with abacavir was conducted in two Ugandan Development of Antiretroviral Therapy in Africa (DART) centres: 600 symptomatic antiretroviral-naïve HIV-infected adults with CD4 counts <200 cells/microL were randomized to zidovudine/lamivudine plus abacavir or nevirapine (placebo-controlled to 24-week primary toxicity endpoint, and then open-label). Documented World Health Organization (WHO) stage 4 events were independently reviewed and plasma HIV-1 RNA assayed retrospectively. Exploratory efficacy analyses are intention-to-treat.

Results: The median pre-ART CD4 count was 99 cells/microL, and the median pre-ART viral load was 284 600 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL. A total of 563 participants (94%) completed 48 weeks of follow-up, 25 (4%) died and 12 (2%) were lost to follow-up. The randomized drug was substituted in 21 participants (7%) receiving abacavir vs. 34 (11%) receiving nevirapine (P=0.09). At 48 weeks, 62% of participants receiving abacavir vs. 77% of those receiving nevirapine had viral loads <50 copies/mL (P<0.001), and mean CD4 count increases from baseline were +147 vs. +173 cells/microL, respectively (P=0.006). Nine participants (3%) receiving abacavir vs. 16 (5%) receiving nevirapine died [hazard ratio (HR) 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-1.25; P=0.15]; 20 receiving abacavir vs. 32 receiving nevirapine developed new or recurrent WHO 4 events or died (HR=0.60; 95% CI 0.34-1.05; P=0.07) and 48 receiving abacavir vs. 68 receiving nevirapine developed new or recurrent WHO 3 or 4 events or died (HR=0.67; 95% CI 0.46-0.96; P=0.03). Seventy-one participants (24%) receiving abacavir experienced 91 grade 4 adverse events compared with 130 events in 109 participants (36%) on nevirapine (P<0.001).

Conclusions: The clear virological/immunological superiority of nevirapine over abacavir was not reflected in clinical outcomes over 48 weeks. The inability of CD4 cell count/viral load to predict initial clinical treatment efficacy is unexplained and requires further evaluation.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial, Phase II
  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Body Weight / drug effects
  • CD4 Lymphocyte Count / standards
  • Dideoxynucleosides / adverse effects
  • Dideoxynucleosides / therapeutic use
  • Disease Progression
  • Double-Blind Method
  • Drug Therapy, Combination / methods
  • Female
  • HIV Infections / drug therapy*
  • HIV Infections / immunology
  • HIV Infections / mortality
  • HIV Infections / virology
  • HIV-1* / drug effects
  • Humans
  • Lamivudine / adverse effects
  • Lamivudine / therapeutic use
  • Male
  • Medication Adherence
  • Middle Aged
  • Nevirapine / adverse effects
  • Nevirapine / therapeutic use
  • RNA, Viral / blood
  • Recurrence
  • Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors / adverse effects
  • Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors / therapeutic use*
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Uganda
  • Viral Load / drug effects
  • Viral Load / standards
  • Zidovudine / adverse effects
  • Zidovudine / therapeutic use

Substances

  • Dideoxynucleosides
  • RNA, Viral
  • Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
  • Lamivudine
  • Zidovudine
  • Nevirapine
  • abacavir