A randomized trial comparing plasma drug concentrations and efficacies between 2 nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-based regimens in HIV-infected patients receiving rifampicin: the N2R Study. SENC (Spanish efavirenz vs. nevirapine comparison) trial: a randomized, open-label study in HIV-infected naive individuals. 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. Virologic, immunologic, clinical, safety, and resistance outcomes from a long-term comparison of efavirenz-based versus nevirapine-based antiretroviral regimens as initial therapy in HIV-1-infected persons.
To our knowledge, to date, no prospective, randomized, clinical trial has compared standard doses of efavirenz- and nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy among patients with concurrent human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection and tuberculosis (TB) who are receiving rifampicin.
                Rifampicin recipients with concurrent HIV-1 infection and TB were randomized to receive antiretroviral therapy that included either efavirenz (600 mg per day) or nevirapine (400 mg per day). Efavirenz and nevirapine concentrations at 12 h after dosing (C12) were monitored at weeks 6 and 12. CD4+ cell counts and HIV-1 RNA levels were assessed every 12 weeks.
                One hundred forty-two patients were randomized into 2 groups equally. The mean body weight of patients was 53 kg, the mean CD4+ cell count was 65 cells/mm3, and the median HIV-1 RNA level was 5.8 log10 copies/mL. At weeks 6 and 12, the mean C12 of efavirenz (+/- standard deviation) were 4.27+/-4.49 and 3.54+/-3.78 mg/L, respectively, and those for nevirapine were 5.59+/-3.48 and 5.6+/-2.65 mg/L, respectively. Interpatient variability in the efavirenz group was 2.3-fold greater than that in the nevirapine group (coefficient of variation, 107% vs. 47%). At week 12, 3.1% of patients in the efavirenz group and 21.3% in the nevirapine group had C12 values that were less than the recommended minimum concentrations (odds ratio, 8.396; 95% confidence interval, 1.808-38.993; P= .002). Intention-to-treat analysis revealed that 73.2% and 71.8% of patients in the efavirenz and nevirapine groups, respectively, achieved HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL at week 48, with respective mean CD4+ cell counts of 274 and 252 cells/mm3 (P> .05). Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with low C12 values and those with a body weight <55 kg were 3.6 and 2.4 times more likely, respectively, to develop all-cause treatment failure (P< .05).
                Antiretroviral therapy regimens containing efavirenz (600 mg per day) were less compromised by concomitant use of rifampicin than were those that contained nevirapine (400 mg per day) in patients with concurrent HIV-1 infection and TB. Low drug exposure and low body weight are important predictive factors for treatment failure. A randomized, open-label, pilot study was undertaken to explore the antiviral activity and tolerability of two nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), nevirapine (NVP) and efavirenz (EFV).
                HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive adults with CD4 counts >100 cells/mm(3) and detectable plasma HIV RNA below 100,000 copies/mL were randomized to receive didanosine (ddI) and stavudine (d4T) plus either NVP or EFV. Assessments were made every 12 weeks. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients reaching plasma HIV RNA <50 copies/mL and/or developing NNRTI-related toxicities leading to drug discontinuation. Baseline characteristics were comparable for participants in the EFV (n = 31) and NVP arms (n = 36).
                At 48 weeks, 23/31 (74%) patients in the EFV group and 23/36 (64%) in the NVP group had <50 HIV RNA copies/mL (intention-to-treat analysis). Adverse events led to NNRTI discontinuation in 4 and 3 patients in the EFV and NVP arms, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding any primary endpoint. NVP and EFV along with two NRTIs may be equally well tolerated and effective at achieving <50 HIV RNA copies/mL in naive patients with CD4 counts >100 cells/mm(3) and HIV RNA <10(5) copies/mL.
                A much larger study is needed to demonstrate any significant differences between NVP and EFV, if they exist at all. The 2NN Study was a randomised comparison of the non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) nevirapine and efavirenz.
                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.
                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.
                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. To compare long-term virologic, immunologic, and clinical outcomes in antiretroviral-naïve persons starting efavirenz (EFV)- versus nevirapine (NVP)-based regimens.
                The FIRST study randomized patients into three strategy arms: PI+NRTI, NNRTI+NRTI, and PI+NNRTI+NRTI. NNRTI was determined by optional randomization (NVP or EFV) or by choice. For this randomized substudy, the primary endpoint was HIV RNA >50 copies/mL after 8 months or death. Genotypic resistance testing was done at virologic failure (VF; HIV RNA >1,000 copies/mL at or after 4 months).
                228 persons (111 randomized to EFV, 117 to NVP) were followed for median 5 years. Rates per 100 person years for the primary endpoint were 41.2 (EFV) and 42.8 (NVP; p = .59). The percent of persons with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL was similar throughout follow-up (p = .24), as were average increases in CD4+ cells (p = .30). 423 persons declining the substudy chose EFV; 264 chose NVP. There were 915 persons in the combined cohort (randomized and choice). In the combined cohort, the risk of VF and VF with any NNRTI or NRTI resistance or resistance of any class was significantly less for EFV compared to NVP.
                EFV-based regimens as initial therapy resulted in a lower risk of VF and VF with resistance than did NVP-based regimens, although immunologic and clinical outcomes were similar.
Both drugs have equivalent efficacies in initial treatment of HIV infection when combined with two NRTIs, but different side effects.