Efavirenz versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: A prospective study of HIV-positive individuals

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
225 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e5133
JournalMedicine (Baltimore)
Volume95
Issue number41
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2016

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Efavirenz versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: A prospective study of HIV-positive individuals'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this