Suppr超能文献

奈韦拉平/齐多夫定/拉米夫定与阿巴卡韦/齐多夫定/拉米夫定在随机对照 48 周比较中,在免疫和病毒学应答方面具有优势,但并未反映在临床结局方面,该研究纳入了乌干达低 CD4 细胞计数的 HIV 感染成人。

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.

机构信息

MRC/UVRI Uganda Research Unit on AIDS, Entebbe, Uganda.

出版信息

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.

摘要

背景

三联核苷逆转录酶抑制剂方案作为一线抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)具有优势,避免了肝毒性和与抗结核治疗的相互作用,并为二线 ART 保留了两类药物。人们对病毒学效力存在担忧;在非洲尚未评估其疗效。

方法

在乌干达发展中的非洲抗逆转录病毒治疗(DART)的两个中心进行了一项比较奈韦拉平与阿巴卡韦的安全性试验:600 名有症状的、未经抗逆转录病毒治疗的 HIV 感染的成年人,CD4 计数<200 个细胞/微升,随机分为齐多夫定/拉米夫定加阿巴卡韦或奈韦拉平(安慰剂对照至 24 周的主要毒性终点,然后开放标签)。记录的世界卫生组织(WHO)第 4 阶段事件由独立审查,并回顾性检测血浆 HIV-1 RNA。探索性疗效分析为意向治疗。

结果

中位 ART 前 CD4 计数为 99 个细胞/微升,中位 ART 前病毒载量为 284600 HIV-1 RNA 拷贝/ml。共有 563 名参与者(94%)完成了 48 周的随访,25 名(4%)死亡,12 名(2%)失访。接受阿巴卡韦治疗的 21 名参与者(7%)与接受奈韦拉平治疗的 34 名参与者(11%)相比,随机药物被替代(P=0.09)。在 48 周时,接受阿巴卡韦治疗的参与者中有 62%的病毒载量<50 拷贝/ml,而接受奈韦拉平治疗的参与者中有 77%的病毒载量<50 拷贝/ml(P<0.001),并且从基线开始的平均 CD4 计数分别增加了+147 个细胞/微升和+173 个细胞/微升(P=0.006)。接受阿巴卡韦治疗的 9 名参与者(3%)与接受奈韦拉平治疗的 16 名参与者(5%)死亡[风险比(HR)0.55;95%置信区间(CI)0.24-1.25;P=0.15];接受阿巴卡韦治疗的 20 名参与者与接受奈韦拉平治疗的 32 名参与者出现新的或复发性 WHO 4 级事件或死亡(HR=0.60;95%CI 0.34-1.05;P=0.07),接受阿巴卡韦治疗的 48 名参与者与接受奈韦拉平治疗的 68 名参与者出现新的或复发性 WHO 3 或 4 级事件或死亡(HR=0.67;95%CI 0.46-0.96;P=0.03)。接受阿巴卡韦治疗的 71 名参与者(24%)经历了 91 次 4 级不良事件,而接受奈韦拉平治疗的 109 名参与者(36%)中发生了 130 次事件(P<0.001)。

结论

奈韦拉平在病毒学/免疫学方面明显优于阿巴卡韦,但在 48 周的临床转归中并未反映出来。CD4 细胞计数/病毒载量无法预测初始临床治疗效果的原因尚不清楚,需要进一步评估。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验