OBJECTIVE: To compare alternative class-sparing antiretroviral regimens in treatment-naive subjects. DESIGN: Open-label, multicenter, randomized trial of up to 3 consecutive treatment regimens over 96 weeks. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-one subjects received abacavir (ABC) and lamivudine and efavirenz (nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NNRTIs]), ritonavir-boosted amprenavir (protease inhibitor [PI]), or stavudine (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor [NRTI]) by random assignment. The primary end points were the percentages of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels <400 copies/mL and time to treatment failure over 96 weeks. RESULTS: Ninety percent of subjects completed 96 weeks of follow-up, and 79% remained on study treatment. At week 96, there were no differences between arms in the percentages of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels <400 and <50 copies/mL, mean changes in plasma HIV-1 RNA levels, time to treatment failure, time to first or second virologic failure, or CD4 cell counts. The NNRTI arm had a greater percentages of subjects with RNA levels <or=50 copies/mL at weeks 24 and 48 and a greater overall duration of plasma HIV-1 RNA levels <400 copies/mL. Three subjects in the NNRTI arm had treatment failure on their first regimen and switched therapy compared with 16 in the NRTI arm and 13 in the PI arm. Twenty-one subjects had hypersensitivity reactions attributed to ABC (7.3%). Fewer drugs were used by subjects in the NNRTI arm, and fewer subjects in the NNRTI arm used 3 drug classes. CONCLUSIONS: All treatment regimens demonstrated excellent 96-week results. Secondary analyses favored the NNRTI regimen over the PI and NRTI regimens.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bartlett et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: