Efficacy, safety, and adherence with a twice-daily combination lamivudine/zidovudine tablet formulation, plus a protease inhibitor, in HIV infection.

OBJECTIVE: A randomized, open-label, multicenter study to establish clinical equivalence (non-inferiority) of a regimen employing a lamivudine 150 mg/zidovudine 300 mg combination tablet, administered twice daily, plus a marketed protease inhibitor, compared with a conventional regimen of 150 mg lamivudine twice daily, 600 mg zidovudine daily, and a protease inhibitor, in antiretroviral-experienced patients infected with HIV-1. PATIENTS: Adults who were seropositive for HIV-1 infection with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels < 10000 copies/ml (Roche Amplicor polymerase chain reaction assay, lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) 400 copies/ml) and CD4+ cell counts > or = 300 x 10(6)/l). All patients had been receiving the conventional lamivudine/zidovudine/protease inhibitor regimen for > or = 10 weeks immediately prior to the study. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to the conventional regimen (n = 113) or combination tablet regimen (n = 110) for 16 weeks. The primary study endpoint was treatment failure, defined as an increase in HIV-1 RNA > or = 0.5 log10 above baseline in patients with viral load > LLOQ at randomization and as HIV-1 RNA increasing to > or = 1250 copies/ml in patients with viral load < LLOQ at randomization. RESULTS: The combination tablet regimen was associated with a 3.5% greater success rate than the conventional regimen (96.4 versus 92.9%), with four and eight patients failing treatment due to increases in HIV-1 RNA levels, respectively. The lower limit of the associated confidence interval for the difference was -2.4%, which was well within the -10% margin predefined as clinically unimportant. This establishes the clinical equivalence (non-inferiority) of the combination tablet regimen to the conventional regimens regarding virologic response. The combination tablet and conventional regimens were similar with respect to percentage of patients maintaining HIV-1 RNA levels < LLOQ at the end of study or improving from baseline to undetectability (94 versus 91%; P= 0.063), overall incidence of drug-related adverse events (21 versus 19%) (P=0.868), and mean area under the curve for CD4+ cell counts [treatment difference, 5.9 cells (95% confidence interval, -15.8 to 27.6 x 10(6) cells/l)]. A self-reported adherence questionnaire indicated that patients in the combination tablet group were less likely to miss doses of nucleoside analogue medication at weeks 8 (P= 0.007) and 16 (P= 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: The combination lamivudine/zidovudine tablet/protease inhibitor regimen is clinically equivalent (non-inferior) to the conventional regimen with respect to virologic response and may offer adherence advantages.

Correlation between self-reported adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and virologic outcome.

The Patient Medication Adherence Questionnaire Version 1.0 (PMAQ-V1.0) is a patient-reported adherence instrument to assess medication-taking behaviors and identify barriers to adherence with antiretroviral therapy. To assess the correlation between adherence and virologic outcome, the PMAQ-V1.0 was administered to 194 antiretroviral-experienced adults with HIV infection enrolled in a 16-week evaluation of protease inhibitor-containing regimens featuring a lamivudine/zidovudine combination tablet. At baseline, plasma HIV-1 RNA levels were less than 10,000 copies/mL and CD4(+)-cell counts were equal to or greater than 300 x 10(6)/L; patients had been receiving a conventional regimen of lamivudine + zidovudine (separately) plus a protease inhibitor for at least 10 weeks immediately prior to the study. Forty-eight percent of patients who reported missing at least one dose of a nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) during the study had detectable plasma HIV-1 RNA, compared with 26% of patients who reported no missed doses (P = .002). Patients who missed at least one dose of an NRTI or protease inhibitor were 2.5 times more likely to have quantifiable HIV-1 RNA than those who reported no missed doses. Patients who reported fewer barriers and more motivators to adherence had better virologic outcomes (P = .001). Several dimensions of the PMAQ-V1.0 did not function as well as hypothesized. In this study, self-reported adherence derived from the PMAQ-V1.0 predicted virologic outcomes, but further refinement of the dimensions appears warranted.

Impact of zidovudine-based triple combination therapy on an AIDS drug assistance program.

A static deterministic model was used to estimate the effect of the shift to a triple combination therapeutic standard on the annual AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) budget, total medical care expenditures, and population health outcomes for New York (NY) state ADAP enrollees. The model used opportunistic disease incidence data from the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and other studies. Costs of treating opportunistic infections (OIs) and other HIV complications with each type of therapy were derived from treatment algorithms and standard unit costs. CD4+ cell counts were used as an index of need for OI prophylaxis and for determining OI incidence. Treatment with zidovudine-based combination therapy has been shown to increase CD4+ cell counts and reduce OI incidence. The model estimated that a change from monotherapy to triple therapy would have increased NY ADAP budget expenditures per enrollee by 115%. However, total medical system costs per ADAP enrollee (including ADAP costs) would decrease by 0.4% in the base case as a result of reduction in OIs and other HIV sequelae and associated costs. Results are sensitive to the assumed percentage of people taking combination therapy as well as to the assumptions made about the impact of the combination therapy on CD4+ cell count. Total ADAP budget impacts will depend on the growth in ADAP enrollment as a result of the availability of more effective therapies. In conclusion, this model demonstrates how access to newer, more effective HIV drug treatments can reduce the costs of treating OIs and provide major health benefits for ADAP enrollees.

Phenotypic drug susceptibility testing predicts long-term virologic suppression better than treatment history in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection.

To assess the value of phenotypic drug susceptibility testing as a predictor of antiretroviral treatment response in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected people, drug susceptibility testing was performed retrospectively on plasma samples collected at baseline in a cohort of 86 antiretroviral-experienced, HIV-infected people experiencing treatment failure and initiating a new antiretroviral treatment regimen. Two separate criteria for reduced drug susceptibility were evaluated. In multivariate analyses, phenotypic susceptibility was an independent predictor of time to treatment failure (adjusted hazards ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.90; and adjusted HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95, with reduced drug susceptibility cutoffs defined as 4.0-fold and 2.5-fold higher than reference virus IC(50) values, respectively). Previous protease inhibitor experience was also a significant independent predictor. Notably, drug susceptibility predicted on the basis of treatment history alone was not predictive of time to treatment failure. In this cohort, phenotypic testing results enhanced the ability to predict sustained long-term suppression of virus load.