January 25, 2001; Updated
|Susa Coffey, MD|
| 2. ||Gallant
AK; 903 Study Group.|
Efficacy and safety of tenofovir DF vs stavudine in combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive patients: a 3-year randomized trial. JAMA. 2004 Jul;292(2):191-201
[PubMed ID: 15249568]
CONTEXT: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF) is a once-daily nucleotide analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tenofovir DF compared with stavudine in antiretroviral-naive patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study conducted at 81 centers in the United States, South America, and Europe from June 9, 2000, to January 30, 2004. A total of 753 patients infected with HIV who were antiretroviral naive were screened and 602 patients entered the study. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive either tenofovir DF (n = 299) or stavudine (n = 303), with placebo, in combination with lamivudine and efavirenz. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of patients with HIV RNA levels of less than 400 copies/mL at week 48. RESULTS: In the primary intent-to-treat analysis in which patients with missing data or who added or switched antiretroviral medications before week 48 were considered as failures, the proportion of patients with HIV RNA of less than 400 copies/mL at week 48 was 239 (80%) of 299 in patients receiving tenofovir DF and 253 (84%) of 301 in patients receiving stavudine (95% confidence interval, -10.4% to 1.5%), exceeding the predefined -10% limit for equivalence. However, equivalence was demonstrated in the secondary analyses (HIV RNA <50 copies/mL) at week 48 and through 144 weeks. Virologic failure was associated most frequently with efavirenz and lamivudine resistance. Through 144 weeks, the K65R mutation emerged in 8 and 2 patients in the tenofovir DF and stavudine groups, respectively (P =.06). A more favorable mean change from baseline in fasting lipid profile was noted in the tenofovir DF group at week 144: for triglyceride levels (+1 mg/dL for tenofovir DF [n = 170] vs +134 mg/dL for stavudine [n = 162], P<.001), total cholesterol (+30 mg/dL [n = 170] vs +58 mg/dL [n = 162], P<.001), direct low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (+14 mg/dL [n = 169] vs +26 mg/dL [n = 161], P<.001), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (+9 mg/dL [n = 168] vs +6 mg/dL [n = 154], P =.003). Investigator-reported lipodystrophy was less common in the tenofovir DF group compared with the stavudine group (9 [3%] of 299 vs 58 [19%] of 301, P<.001). The number of bone fractures and the renal safety profile were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Through 144 weeks, the combination of tenofovir DF, lamivudine, and efavirenz was highly effective and comparable with stavudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz in antiretroviral-naive patients. However, tenofovir DF appeared to be associated with better lipid profiles and less lipodystrophy.
| 5. ||Joly
Increased risk of lipoatrophy under stavudine in HIV-1-infected patients: results of a substudy from a comparative trial. AIDS. 2002 Dec;16(18):2447-54
[PubMed ID: 12461419]
OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of clinical lipodystrophy in HIV-1-infected patients receiving zidovudine or stavudine, in combination with indinavir and lamivudine, in a randomized trial. METHODS: NOVAVIR was a randomized multicentre trial comparing stavudine/lamivudine/indinavir and zidovudine/lamivudine/indinavir in 170 patients pretreated with zidovudine, didanosine or zalcitabine (> 6 months), but naive for lamivudine, stavudine and protease inhibitors. The incidence of clinical lipodystrophy and metabolic abnormalities was assessed in a subgroup of 101 patients after 30 months of follow-up. RESULTS: The incidence of lipoatrophy was increased in the stavudine arm versus the zidovudine arm, as followed: facial atrophy: 48 versus 22% of patients, P = 0.011, lower limb atrophy: 49 versus 22% of patients, P = 0.006, buttock atrophy: 47 versus 20% of patients, P = 0.009, venomegaly: 57 versus 24% of patients, P = 0.001. There was no significant difference in the incidence of clinical signs of central fat accumulation nor in fasting metabolic parameters at month 30 between the two arms. In multivariate analyses, the stavudine arm, previous therapy with didanosine, and a lower CD4 cell count at study entry were associated with an increased risk of lipoatrophy, whereas older patients and women had an increased risk of lipohypertrophy. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving stavudine/lamivudine/indinavir had a greater rate of clinical lipodystrophy, mainly lipoatrophy, than those treated with zidovudine/lamivudine/indinavir.
| 6. ||Boubaker
Hyperlactatemia and antiretroviral therapy: the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Dec;33(11):1931-7
[PubMed ID: 11692306]
The prevalence, clinical presentation, and risk factors for hyperlactatemia among patients receiving antiretroviral therapy was determined during a 1-month period for patients in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Overall, 73 (8.3%) of 880 patients presented an increase in serum lactate of >1.1 times the upper normal limit (UNL). For 9 patients (1%), lactate elevation was moderate or severe (>2.2 times the UNL). Patients who presented with hyperlactatemia were more likely to be receiving stavudine with or without didanosine (odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-4.8), as compared with patients who received zidovudine-based regimens. The risk increased with increasing time receiving stavudine with or without didanosine. The association between hyperlactatemia and stavudine with or without didanosine was not biased by these medications being more recently available and, therefore, being given preferentially to patients who had prolonged use of nucleoside analog reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. Hyperlactatemia was associated with lipoatrophy, hyperlipidemia, and hyperglycemia. Age, sex, or stage of infection with human immunodeficiency virus were not predictive of hyperlactatemia. Determination of lactate levels may prove useful in the screening for mitochondrial toxicity.