96-week efficacy and safety of atazanavir, with and without ritonavir, in a HAART regimen in treatment-naive patients.

This study assesses virologic response, safety, tolerability, and changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in antiretroviral (ARV)-naive patients treated with 2 atazanavir (ATV)-based regimens over 96 weeks. Treatment-naive adult patients (n = 200) were randomized to receive either ATV 300 mg with ritonavir (RTV) 100 mg (ATV300/r, n = 95) or ATV 400 mg (ATV400; n = 105). At week 96, 75% of ATV300/r-treated and 70% of ATV400-treated patients achieved viral loads <400 copies/mL (difference estimate [95% confidence interval, CI] = 5.1 [-7.1 to 17.2]). Five and 20 patients, respectively, experienced virologic failure. Adverse event-related discontinuations occurred among 8% receiving ATV300/r and 3% receiving ATV400. Plasma lipid elevations were generally low. Both regimens were well tolerated and associated with sustained improvements in HRQoL. These findings demonstrate long-term efficacy, tolerability, and safety of both ATV300/r and ATV400 in ARV-naive patients through 96 weeks with improvements in HRQoL.

Efficacy and safety of atazanavir, with or without ritonavir, as part of once-daily highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients.

BACKGROUND: Atazanavir (ATV), the first once-daily protease inhibitor approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infection, is recommended for use in antiretroviral (ARV) treatment-naive and -experienced patients. Study AI424-089 was a prospective, randomized, open-label, 96-week study comparing 2 ATV-based treatment regimens in ARV-naive HIV-infected patients. METHODS: Adults with HIV RNA levels > or =2000 copies/mL were randomized (1:1) to once-daily ATV at a dose of 300 mg with ritonavir at a dose of 100 mg (ATV300/RTV) or ATV at a dose of 400 mg (ATV400); both regimens included lamivudine and an investigational extended-release formulation of stavudine. The primary endpoint for this noninferiority study was the proportion of patients (response rate) with an HIV RNA load <400 copies/mL at week 48. RESULTS: Response rates at week 48 were 86% and 85% on the ATV300/RTV and ATV400 regimens, respectively (difference estimate [95% confidence interval] = 1.5 [-8.2 to 11.1]). There were 3 and 10 patients with virologic failure in the ATV300/RTV and ATV400 groups, respectively. One patient (ATV400) developed phenotypic resistance to ATV associated with an I50L substitution. Adverse event-related discontinuations were 8% among ATV300/RTV-treated patients and <1% among ATV400-treated patients. Plasma lipid elevations were low with both regimens. Both regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the ATV300/RTV regimen and confirm the safety and efficacy of ATV400 in an ARV-naive patient population.

Comparison of first-line antiretroviral therapy with regimens including nevirapine, efavirenz, or both drugs, plus stavudine and lamivudine: a randomised open-label trial, the 2NN Study.

BACKGROUND: The 2NN Study was a randomised comparison of the non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) nevirapine and efavirenz. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised trial, 1216 antiretroviral-therapy-naive patients were assigned nevirapine 400 mg once daily, nevirapine 200 mg twice daily, efavirenz 600 mg once daily, or nevirapine (400 mg) and efavirenz (800 mg) once daily, plus stavudine and lamivudine, for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with treatment failure (less than 1 log(10) decline in plasma HIV-1 RNA in the first 12 weeks or two consecutive measurements of more than 50 copies per mL from week 24 onwards, disease progression [new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grade C event or death], or change of allocated treatment). Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Treatment failure occurred in 96 (43.6%) of 220 patients assigned nevirapine once daily, 169 (43.7%) of 387 assigned nevirapine twice daily, 151 (37.8%) of 400 assigned efavirenz, and 111 (53.1%) of 209 assigned nevirapine plus efavirenz. The difference between nevirapine twice daily and efavirenz was 5.9% (95% CI -0.9 to 12.8). There were no significant differences among the study groups in the proportions with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations below 50 copies per mL at week 48 (p=0.193) or the increases in CD4-positive cells (p=0.800). Nevirapine plus efavirenz was associated with the highest frequency of clinical adverse events, and nevirapine once daily with significantly more hepatobiliary laboratory toxicities than efavirenz. Of 25 observed deaths, two were attributed to nevirapine. INTERPRETATION: Antiretroviral therapy with nevirapine or efavirenz showed similar efficacy, so triple-drug regimens with either NNRTI are valid for first-line treatment. There are, however, differences in safety profiles. Combination of nevirapine and efavirenz did not improve efficacy but caused more adverse events.