Lamivudine (Epivir)

Published January 25, 2001; Updated April 15, 2019
Susa Coffey, MD
Selected References
2. Gulick  RM, Ribaudo  HJ, Shikuma  CM, Lustgarten  S, Squires  KE, Meyer  WA, Acosta  EP, Schackman  BR, Pilcher  CD, Murphy  RL, Maher  WE, Witt  MD, Reichman  RC, Snyder  S, Klingman  KL, Kuritzkes  DR; AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study A5095 Team.
Triple-nucleoside regimens versus efavirenz-containing regimens for the initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2004 Apr;350(18):1850-61
[PubMed ID: 15115831]
BACKGROUND: Regimens containing three nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors offer an alternative to regimens containing nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors or protease inhibitors for the initial treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but data from direct comparisons are limited. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind study involved three antiretroviral regimens for the initial treatment of subjects infected with HIV-1: zidovudine-lamivudine-abacavir, zidovudine-lamivudine plus efavirenz, and zidovudine-lamivudine-abacavir plus efavirenz. RESULTS: We enrolled a total of 1147 subjects with a mean baseline HIV-1 RNA level of 4.85 log10 (71,434) copies per milliliter and a mean CD4 cell count of 238 per cubic millimeter were enrolled. A scheduled review by the data and safety monitoring board with the use of prespecified stopping boundaries led to a recommendation to stop the triple-nucleoside group and to present the results in the triple-nucleoside group in comparison with pooled data from the efavirenz groups. After a median follow-up of 32 weeks, 82 of 382 subjects in the triple-nucleoside group (21 percent) and 85 of 765 of those in the combined efavirenz groups (11 percent) had virologic failure; the time to virologic failure was significantly shorter in the triple-nucleoside group (P<0.001). This difference was observed regardless of the pretreatment HIV-1 RNA stratum (at least 100,000 copies per milliliter or below this level; P< or =0.001 for both comparisons). Changes in the CD4 cell count and the incidence of grade 3 or grade 4 adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of the initial treatment of HIV-1 infection, the triple-nucleoside combination of abacavir, zidovudine, and lamivudine was virologically inferior to a regimen containing efavirenz and two or three nucleosides.
3. Gallant  JE, Rodriguez  AE, Weinberg  WG, Young  B, Berger  DS, Lim  ML, Liao  Q, Ross  L, Johnson  J, Shaefer  MS; ESS30009 Study.
Early virologic nonresponse to tenofovir, abacavir, and lamivudine in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive subjects. J Infect Dis. 2005 Dec;192(11):1921-30
[PubMed ID: 16267763]
BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral combinations that reduce the number of pills and dosing frequency have the potential to simplify therapy. We compared 2 regimens dosed as 2 pills once daily. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter study of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus efavirenz, both administered once daily with the abacavir/lamivudine fixed-dose combination in treatment-naive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected subjects. After reports of early nonresponse, an unplanned interim analysis was performed. Virologic nonresponse was defined as (1) a <2.0-log(10) copies/mL decrease in HIV-1 RNA level by week 8, (2) an HIV-1 RNA rebound of > or =1.0 log(10) copies/mL above the nadir, or (3) for subjects with 2 consecutive HIV-1 RNA measurements <50 copies/mL, a subsequent increase to >400 copies/mL on 2 consecutive occasions. RESULTS: We randomized 340 subjects. Median baseline HIV-1 RNA level and CD4+ cell count were 4.7 log(10) copies/mL and 251 cells/mm3, respectively; 194 subjects with HIV-1 RNA data from > or =8 weeks were included in the interim analysis. Virologic nonresponse occurred in 50 (49%) of 102 subjects in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate arm, compared with 5 (5%) of 92 of subjects in the efavirenz arm (P<.001). Within 12 weeks, viral genotypes for nonresponders in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate arm showed M184V or I/M/V mixtures in 40 (98%) of 41 subjects and K65R and M184V or mixtures in 22 (54%) of 41 subjects. The protocol was immediately amended to modify the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate arm. The efavirenz arm continued unchanged; after 48 weeks, 120 (71%) of 169 subjects achieved HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL. CONCLUSION: The tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/abacavir/lamivudine regimen resulted in an unexpected and unacceptably high rate of nonresponse and incidence of K65R and M184V/I. This 3-drug regimen should not be used.
4. Khanlou  H, Yeh  V, Guyer  B, Farthing  C.
Early virologic failure in a pilot study evaluating the efficacy of therapy containing once-daily abacavir, lamivudine, and tenofovir DF in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2005 Mar;19(3):135-40
[PubMed ID: 15798380]
Previous investigational data using abacavir (ABC), lamuvidine (3TC), and zidovudine has suggested the possibility of triple nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) therapy as an option in the treatment of HIV infection. We performed a pilot study to assess the potency of once daily ABC+ 3TC+ tenofovir (TDF) in the treatment of HIV-infected naive patients. CD4 and HIV-viral load (VL) were followed monthly. Patients were considered to be nonresponder/failing if there was no reduction in VL by >/= 2 log(10) by week 8 and/or a rebound in VL after initial suppression. Resistance testing was then obtained. Nineteen patients naive to antiretroviral therapy (3 women and 16 men) were enrolled, of whom, 2 did not return (withdrew from study at week 2). Median VL and CD4 count at baseline were 147,167 copies per milliliter (5.16 log(10); [range, 7650->750,000]) and 277 cells/mm(3) (range, 59-598). Eight patients had VL > 100000 at baseline. Of 17 patients eligible for follow-up, 5 (27%) were responders (virologic success). Twelve patients (63%) were considered nonresponders and/or with virologic failure. The study was prematurely interrupted because of a high rate of treatment failure. Resistance testing available for 11 nonresponders (58%) showed: 2 patients with wild-type, 5 patients with M184V (reducing susceptibility to 3TC and ABC), 4 patients with M184V+K65R (K65R is responsible for reducing susceptibility to ABC, 3TC and TDF), and none with K65R alone. In conclusion, the combination of ABC, 3TC and TDF cannot be recommended for the initial regimen in HIV treatment-naive patients.
5. Jemsek J, Hutcherson P, Harper E. Poor virologic responses and early emergence of resistance in treatment naive, HIV-infected patients receiving a once daily triple nucleoside regimen of didanosine, lamivudine, and tenofovir DF. In: Program and abstracts of the 11th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 8-11, 2004; San Francisco. Abstract 51.