Superior Effectiveness of Zidovudine Compared With Tenofovir When Combined With Nevirapine-based Antiretroviral Therapy in a Large Nigerian Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Despite sparse efficacy data, tenofovir-emtricitabine or tenofovir-lamivudine plus nevirapine is used in many resource-constrained settings. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients initiating nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) with either tenofovir-emtricitabine or lamivudine (tenofovir group) or zidovudine-lamivudine (zidovudine group). Clinical, virologic, and immunologic evaluations were performed at baseline and every 6 months. Virologic failure was defined as 2 consecutive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-RNA values >1000 copies/mL. Patients were included from ART initiation until time of failure, regimen switch, discontinuation, or last HIV-RNA measurement. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model factors influencing time to failure. Bias due to dependent censoring was investigated via inverse probability weighted pooled logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 5547 patients were evaluated; 1484 (26.8%) were in the tenofovir group and 4063 (73.2%) were in the zidovudine group. In the adjusted model, tenofovir regimen (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.79) and higher baseline log10 HIV-RNA (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28) were associated with virologic failure. Higher baseline log10 CD4+ cell count (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, .40-.63) and increasing age (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, .97-.99) decreased the risk of virologic failure. Inverse probability weighting results were consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with zidovudine-lamivudine, the use of tenofovir-lamivudine or emtricitabine in combination with nevirapine was a strong predictor of virologic failure in our cohort, which was not explained by other risk factors or criteria for regimen selection.

Immunologic criteria are poor predictors of virologic outcome: implications for HIV treatment monitoring in resource-limited settings.

BACKGROUND: Viral load (VL) quantification is considered essential for determining antiretroviral treatment (ART) success in resource-rich countries. However, it is not widely available in resource-limited settings where the burden of human immunodeficiency virus infection is greatest. In the absence of VL monitoring, switches to second-line ART are based on World Health Organization (WHO) clinical or immunologic failure criteria. METHODS: We assessed the performance of CD4 cell criteria to predict virologic outcomes in a large ART program in Nigeria. Laboratory monitoring consists of CD4 cell count and VL at baseline, then every 6 months. Failure was defined as 2 consecutive VLs >1000 copies/mL after at least 6 months of ART. Virologic outcomes were compared with the 3 WHO-defined immunologic failure criteria. RESULTS: A total of 9690 patients were included in the analysis (median follow-up, 33.2 months). A total of 1225 patients experienced failure by both immunologic and virologic criteria, 872 by virologic criteria only, and 1897 by immunologic criteria only. The sensitivity of CD4 cell criteria to detect viral failure was 58%, specificity was 75%, and the positive-predictive value was 39%. For patients with both virologic and immunologic failure, VL criteria identified failure significantly earlier than CD4 cell criteria (median, 10.4 vs 15.6 months; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the low sensitivity of immunologic criteria, a substantial number of failures are missed, potentially resulting in accumulation of resistance mutations. In addition, specificity and predictive values are low, which may result in large numbers of unnecessary ART switches. Monitoring solely by immunologic criteria may result in increased costs because of excess switches to more expensive ART and development of drug-resistant virus.