National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, 45 Beach St, Coogee, New South Wales, Australia, 2034.
Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Oct 1;51(7):855-64. doi: 10.1086/656363.
Antiretroviral therapy is complicated by drug interactions and contraindications. Novel regimens are needed.
This open label study randomly assigned treatment-naive, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects to receive tenofovir-emtricitabine with efavirenz (Arm I), with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (Arm II), or with zidovudine/abacavir (Arm III). Pair-wise comparisons of differences in time-weighted mean change from baseline plasma HIV-RNA to week 48 formed the primary analysis. Treatment arms were noninferior if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was <0.5 log(10) copies/mL. Secondary objectives included virologic, immunologic and safety end points.
The intention-to-treat population comprised 322 patients (Arm I, n = 114; Arm II, n = 105; and Arm III, n = 103). Noninferiority for the primary end point was established. Analysis for superiority showed that Arm III was significantly less potent than Arm I (-0.20 log(10) copies/mL; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.01 log(10) copies/mL; P = .038). The proportions of patients on each of Arm I (95%) and Arm II (96%) with <200 copies/mL were not different (P = .75), but the percentage of patients in Arm III with <200 copies/mL (82%) was significantly lower (P = .005). CD4+ cell counts did not differ. Serious adverse events were more frequent in Arm III (n = 30) than in Arm I or Arm II (n = 15 for each; P = .062).
A novel quadruple nucleo(t)side combination demonstrated significantly less suppression of HIV replication, compared with the suppression demonstrated by standard antiretroviral therapy regimens, although it did meet the predetermined formal definition of noninferiority. Secondary analyses indicated statistically inferior virologic and safety performance. Efavirenz and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir arms were equivalent in viral suppression and safety.
抗逆转录病毒治疗受到药物相互作用和禁忌证的影响,需要新的治疗方案。
本开放标签研究将未经治疗的 HIV 感染者随机分为三组,分别接受替诺福韦-恩曲他滨联合依非韦伦(I 组)、利托那韦增强的阿扎那韦(II 组)或齐多夫定/阿巴卡韦(III 组)治疗。以第 48 周时血浆 HIV-RNA 时间加权平均变化的组间差异作为主要分析指标。如果 95%置信区间(CI)上限<0.5 log(10)拷贝/ml,则认为治疗组无差异。次要目标包括病毒学、免疫学和安全性终点。
意向治疗人群包括 322 例患者(I 组 114 例,II 组 105 例,III 组 103 例)。主要终点达到非劣效性。优势分析显示,III 组的疗效明显低于 I 组(-0.20 log(10)拷贝/ml;95%CI,-0.39 至-0.01 log(10)拷贝/ml;P =.038)。I 组(95%)和 II 组(96%)中<200 拷贝/ml 的患者比例无差异(P =.75),但 III 组中<200 拷贝/ml 的患者比例(82%)明显较低(P =.005)。CD4+细胞计数无差异。III 组(n = 30)严重不良事件发生率高于 I 组(n = 15,P =.062)或 II 组(n = 15)。
与标准抗逆转录病毒治疗方案相比,一种新的四联核苷(酸)治疗方案抑制 HIV 复制的效果明显较差,但符合预先设定的非劣效性正式定义。次要分析表明病毒学和安全性表现较差。依非韦伦和利托那韦增强的阿扎那韦组在病毒抑制和安全性方面等效。