Efavirenz versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic

Identificador:  imarina:5130928

Handle: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11797/imarina5130928

Autors:  Cain, Lauren E.; Caniglia, Ellen C.; Phillips, Andrew; Olson, Ashley; Muga, Roberto; Perez-Hoyos, Santiago; Abgrall, Sophie; Costagliola, Dominique; Rubio, Rafael; Jarrin, Inma; Bucher, Heiner; Fehr, Jan; van Sighem, Ard; Reiss, Peter; Dabis, Francois; Vandenhende, Marie-Anne; Logan, Roger; Robins, James; Sterne, Jonathan A. C.; Justice, Amy; Tate, Janet; Touloumi, Giota; Paparizos, Vasilis; Esteve, Anna; Casabona, Jordi; Seng, Remonie; Meyer, Laurence; Jose, Sophie; Sabin, Caroline; Hernan, Miguel A.; HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration

Resum:
OBJECTIVE: To compare regimens consisting of either ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or efavirenz and a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone with respect to clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals in Europe and the United States included in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration. METHODS: HIV-positive, antiretroviral therapy-naive, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)-free individuals were followed from the time they started an atazanavir or efavirenz regimen. We estimated an analog of the 'intention-to-treat' effect for efavirenz versus atazanavir regimens on clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes with adjustment via inverse probability weighting for time-varying covariates. RESULTS: A total of 4301 individuals started an atazanavir regimen (83 deaths, 157 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths) and 18,786 individuals started an efavirenz regimen (389 deaths, 825 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths). During a median follow-up of 31 months, the hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 0.98 (0.77, 1.24) for death and 1.09 (0.91, 1.30) for AIDS-defining illness or death comparing efavirenz with atazanavir regimens. The 5-year survival difference was 0.1% (95% confidence interval: -0.7%, 0.8%) and the AIDS-free survival difference was -0.3% (-1.2%, 0.6%). After 12 months, the mean change in CD4 cell count was 20.8 (95% confidence interval: 13.9, 27.8) cells/mm lower and the risk of virologic failure was 20% (14%, 26%) lower in the efavirenz regimens. CONCLUSION: Our estimates are consistent with a smaller 12-month increase in CD4 cell count, and a smaller risk of virologic failure at 12 months for efavirenz compared with atazanavir regimens. No overall differences could be detected with respect to 5-year survival or AIDS-free survival.