Miró José M, Manzardo Christian, Pich Judith, Domingo Pere, Ferrer Elena, Arribas José R, Ribera Esteban, Arrizabalaga Julio, Loncá Montserrat, Cruceta Anna, de Lazzari Elisa, Fuster Montserrat, Podzamczer Daniel, Plana Montserrat, Gatell José M
Hospital Clínic-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2010 Jul;26(7):747-57. doi: 10.1089/aid.2009.0105.
Late diagnosis of HIV-1 infection is quite frequent in Western countries. Very few randomized clinical trials to determine the best antiretroviral treatment in patients with advanced HIV-1 infection have been performed. To compare immune reconstitution in two groups of very immunosuppressed (less than 100 CD4(+) cells/microl), antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected adults, 65 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zidovudine + lamivudine + efavirenz (group A, 34 patients) or zidovudine + lamivudine + ritonavir-boosted indinavir (group B, 31 patients). The median (interquartile range) CD4(+) cell increase after 12 and 36 months was +199 (101, 258) and +299 (170, 464) cells/microl in the efavirenz arm and +136 (57, 235) and +228 (119, 465) cells/microl in the ritonavir-boosted indinavir arm (p > 0.05 for all time points). The proportion (95% confidence interval) of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA levels under 50 copies/ml was significantly greater in the efavirenz arm at 3 years by the intention-to-treat analysis [59% (41%, 75%) vs. 23% (10%, 41%)], whereas no differences were found in the on-treatment analysis. Immune activation (CD8(+)CD38(+) and CD8(+)CD38DR(+) T cells) was significantly lower for the efavirenz arm from month 6 to month 24. Adverse events were more frequent in the ritonavir-boosted indinavir arm. Almost all cases of disease progression and death were observed in the first year of treatment, with no significant differences between the two arms (p = 0.79 by the log-rank test). At 1 and 3 years, the immune reconstitution induced by an efavirenz-based regimen in very immunosuppressed patients was at least as potent as that induced by a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral regimen.
在西方国家,HIV-1感染的晚期诊断相当常见。针对晚期HIV-1感染患者确定最佳抗逆转录病毒治疗方案的随机临床试验开展得很少。为比较两组免疫功能严重抑制(CD4(+)细胞计数低于100个/微升)、未接受过抗逆转录病毒治疗的HIV-1感染成年患者的免疫重建情况,将65例患者按1:1比例随机分组,分别接受齐多夫定+拉米夫定+依非韦伦(A组,34例患者)或齐多夫定+拉米夫定+利托那韦增强的茚地那韦(B组,31例患者)治疗。依非韦伦组在12个月和36个月时CD4(+)细胞增加的中位数(四分位间距)分别为+199(101, 258)个/微升和+299(170, 464)个/微升,利托那韦增强的茚地那韦组分别为+136(57, 235)个/微升和+228(119, 465)个/微升(所有时间点p>0.05)。在意向性分析中,依非韦伦组在3年时实现HIV-1 RNA水平低于50拷贝/毫升的患者比例(95%置信区间)显著更高[59%(41%, 75%)对23%(10%, 41%)],而在治疗中分析未发现差异。从第6个月到第24个月,依非韦伦组的免疫激活(CD8(+)CD38(+)和CD8(+)CD38DR(+) T细胞)显著更低。利托那韦增强的茚地那韦组不良事件更频繁。几乎所有疾病进展和死亡病例都出现在治疗的第一年,两组之间无显著差异(对数秩检验p = 0.79)。在1年和3年时,基于依非韦伦的治疗方案在免疫功能严重抑制的患者中诱导的免疫重建至少与基于利托那韦增强的蛋白酶抑制剂的抗逆转录病毒治疗方案诱导的免疫重建效果相当。