Background: Currently, data on the effectiveness of second-line antiretroviral regimens using indinavir/ritonavir (IDV/r) and atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) along with 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) in resource-poor settings is limited. Methods: Observational follow-up study on 441 patients who experienced treatment failure to first-line nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based treatment. Multivariate Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to assess comparative effectiveness of treatment regimens. Results: A total of 63 patients (14.8%) had failed second line treatments, of which 53 patients (17.2%) were using IDV/r while 10 patients (8.5%) were on ATV/r. After adjusting for age, weight, gender, and baseline CD4 count, patients who took IDV/r were more than twice as likely to experience treatment failure as compared to those who were on ATV/r (hazard ratio [HR] 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14, 4.15). Successful response to second-line therapy was not different between the 2 treatment groups when patients weighed less than 55 kg at baseline (log rank P value = 1.00) in contrast to the individuals weighing ≥55 kg (P
CITATION STYLE
Patel, A. K., Patel, K. K., Naik, E., Jingyi Duan, Ranjan, R., Patel, J. K., & Salihu, H. M. (2011). Comparison of the effectiveness of low-dose indinavir/ritonavir (IDV/r)- versus atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r)-based generic antiretroviral therapy in NNRTI-experienced HIV-1-infected patients in India. Journal of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care, 10(2), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545109710385121
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.