Early virologic nonresponse to tenofovir, abacavir, and lamivudine in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive subjects

135Citations
Citations of this article
49Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background. Antiretroviral combinations that reduce the number of pills and dosing frequency have the potential to simplify therapy. We compared 2 regimens dosed as 2 pills once daily. Methods. This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter study of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus efavirenz, both administered once daily with the abacavir/lamivudine fixed-dose combination in treatment-naive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected subjects. After reports of early nonresponse, an unplanned interim analysis was performed. Virologic nonresponse was defined as (1) a <2.0-log10 copies/mL decrease in HIV-1 RNA level by week 8, (2) an HIV-1 RNA rebound of ≥1.0 log10 copies/mL above the nadir, or (3) for subjects with 2 consecutive HIV-1 RNA measurements <50 copies/mL, a subsequent increase to >400 copies/mL on 2 consecutive occasions. Results. We randomized 340 subjects. Median baseline HIV-1 RNA level and CD4+ cell count were 4.7 log10 copies/mL and 251 cells/mm3, respectively; 194 subjects with HIV-1 RNA data from ≥8 weeks were included in the interim analysis. Virologic nonresponse occurred in 50 (49%) of 102 subjects in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate arm, compared with 5 (5%) of 92 of subjects in the efavirenz arm (P <50 copies/mL. Conclusion. The tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/abacavir/lamivudine regimen resulted in an unexpected and unacceptably high rate of nonresponse and incidence of K65R and M184V/I. This 3-drug regimen should not be used. © 2005 by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gallant, J. E., Rodriguez, A. E., Weinberg, W. G., Young, B., Berger, D. S., Lim, M. L., … Shaefer, M. S. (2005). Early virologic nonresponse to tenofovir, abacavir, and lamivudine in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive subjects. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 192(11), 1921–1930. https://doi.org/10.1086/498069

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free