Efavirenz versus nevirapine-based initial treatment of HIV infection: clinical and virological outcomes in Southern African adults

Nachega, Jean Bf; Hislop, Michaelc; Dowdy, David Wd; Gallant, Joel Ed,e; Chaisson, Richard Ea,d,e; Regensberg, Leonc; Maartens, Garyb


A typographical error was published in the article ‘Efavirenz versus nevirapine-based initial treatment of HIV infection: clinical and virological outcomes in Southern African adults’ by Nachega J.B. et al.[1] which appeared on pp. 2117–2126 of AIDS, Volume 22, issue 16.

The affiliations and correspondence address of the first author were not complete. Please see the corrected information below:

Efavirenz versus nevirapine-based initial treatment of HIV infection: clinical and virological outcomes in Southern African adults

Jean B. Nachegaa,b, Michael Hislopc, David W. Dowdyd, Joel E. Gallantd,e, Richard E. Chaissona,d,e, Leon Regensbergc, and Gary Maartensb

aDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Global Disease Epidemiology and Control Program, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, bDepartment of Medicine, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, cAid for AIDS Disease Management Program Ltd., Cape Town, South Africa, dDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and eDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Correspondence to Professor Jean B. Nachega, MD, PhD, Director, Center for Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Teaching Building, 5th Floor, Room 5012, Tygerberg Campus, Cape Town, South Africa.

E-mail: jnachega@sun.ac.za or jnachega@jhsph.edu

AIDS. 22(17):2408, November 12, 2008.

doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328310407e
Clinical Science

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of efavirenz versus nevirapine in initial antiretroviral therapy regimens for adults in sub-Saharan Africa.

Design: Observational cohort study.

Methods: Study participants were 2817 HIV-infected, highly active antiretroviral therapy-naive adults who began nevirapine-based or efavirenz-based highly active antiretroviral therapy between January 1998 and September 2004 via a private-sector HIV/AIDS program in nine countries of southern Africa. The primary outcome was time to virologic failure (two measurements of viral loads ≥400 copies/ml). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, time to viral load less than 400 copies/ml, pharmacy-claim adherence, and discontinuation of nevirapine or efavirenz without virologic failure.

Results: The median follow-up period was 2.0 years (interquartile range 1.2–2.6). Patients started on nevirapine were significantly less likely than those started on efavirenz to achieve high adherence, whether defined as 100% (30.2 versus 38.1%, P < 0.002) or more than 90% (44.8 versus 49.4%, P < 0.02) pharmacy-claim adherence. In a multivariate analysis, patients on nevirapine had greater risk of virologic failure [hazard ratio (HR 1.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24–1.86)], death (2.17; 1.31–3.60), and regimen discontinuation (1.67; 1.32–2.11). Switching from nevirapine to efavirenz had no significant virologic effect, whereas switching from efavirenz to nevirapine resulted in significantly slower time to suppression (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.35–0.93) and faster time to failure (hazard ratio 3.92; 95% confidence interval 1.61–9.55) than remaining on efavirenz.

Conclusion: In initial highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens, efavirenz was associated with superior virologic and clinical outcomes than nevirapine, suggesting that efavirenz might be the preferred nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor in resource-limited settings. However, its higher cost and potential teratogenicity are important barriers to implementation.

Author Information

aDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Global Disease Epidemiology and Control Program, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

bDepartment of Medicine, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, South Africa

cAid for AIDS Disease Management Program Ltd., Cape Town, South Africa

dDepartment of Epidemiology, USA

eDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

fDepartment of Internal Medicine and Center for Infectious Disease, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.

Received 5 April, 2008

Revised 30 June, 2008

Accepted 9 July, 2008

Correspondence to Professor Jean B. Nachega, MD, PhD, Director, Center for Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Teaching Building, 5th Floor, Room 5012, Tygerberg Campus, Cape Town, South Africa. E-mail: jnachega@sun.ac.za or jnachega@jhsph.edu

Article Outline
Back to Top | Article Outline


WHO recommends that initial highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimens in resource-limited settings include a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) – specifically efavirenz or nevirapine [1,2]. Despite the drugs' widespread use, direct comparisons of their effectiveness are limited and conflicting [3–6]. Currently, efavirenz is recommended over nevirapine for initial treatment by both the US Department of Health and Human Services [7] and the International AIDS Society-USA guidelines [8] based on efavirenz's more favorable toxicity profile and efficacy data [5,9–12]. However, a WHO survey found that most (67%) countries in sub-Saharan Africa recommended nevirapine-based regimens for first-line therapy because it costs less and is available in generic fixed-dose combination regimens [13,14]. Strong evidence that efavirenz produces more favorable virologic and clinical outcomes in a resource-limited population might influence recommendations as well as speed efforts to reduce the cost of efavirenz or to develop a generic efavirenz-containing fixed-dose combination regimen for use in such settings.

A preliminary analysis by our group suggested better virologic outcomes might exist for patients treated initially with efavirenz rather than with nevirapine [15]. However, that analysis was limited by a lack of clinical outcomes data, including mortality and change-in-therapy data. Also, in the earlier study we could only perform limited analyses of relative contributions of efavirenz and nevirapine on virologic outcomes, as the primary variable was adherence, not NNRTI choice.

We now report the results of a primary analysis of virologic and clinical outcomes by initial NNRTI in a large observational cohort study of adults in southern Africa.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Study population and data source

We evaluated records from HIV-1-infected adults enrolled in Aid for AIDS, a private sector, employer-subsidized, disease-management program. Although the majority of patients originate from South Africa, this program operates in nine countries of southern Africa, described in detail elsewhere [16]. This program does not manage clinics, but reviews HAART prescription requests from patients' private medical practitioners according to clinical guidelines [17], and manages doctor's reimbursements. HAART and laboratory tests are fully covered by the patient's medical insurance fund (MIF).

In Aid for AIDS, patients become eligible for HAART with either a documented CD4 cell count less than 350 cells/μl on two occasions or a clinical confirmation of an AIDS-defining illness. The treating physician decides whether to prescribe efavirenz-based or nevirapine-based HAART, but efavirenz is required for those patients on rifampicin for tuberculosis. Nevirapine is required for women of childbearing potential who do not commit to using two reliable methods of contraception (e.g., condoms and hormonal contraceptives) because of the risk of teratogenicity with efavirenz [18–20]. HAART is dispensed monthly via a pharmacy of the patient's choice. For reimbursement, patients submit a claim containing the date dispensed, the specific medication regimen, and the quantity supplied. Reimbursement requires no patient copayment. In this population, short-course HAART is standard policy for prevention of mother-to-child transmission (pMTCT) of HIV; single-dose nevirapine was never used [17].

Aid for AIDS systematically collects demographic, laboratory, and clinical data at baseline and during enrollment and recommends semiannual measurement of CD4 cell count and viral load, but physicians choose the timing and the laboratory in which these tests are performed. Physicians are asked to use the same laboratory for follow-up measurements, but the assays used are not recorded. During follow-up, deaths were identified by notification from the attending medical practitioner, the hospital case manager (for in-hospital deaths), the medical fund administrator, or a family member. Patients who left their MIF or whose MIF changed to a different disease-management program were censored as ‘lost to follow-up’ at the date of departure.

For this study, we included all Aid for AIDS participants who met the following criteria: the participants who were qualified for and claimed at least 1 month of HAART between January 1998 and September 2004; who used an initial regimen containing either efavirenz or nevirapine and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs); who were at least 18 years old at HAART initiation; who had no mention of prior HAART therapy in the medical record provided by the medical practitioner or attending physician; who had no viral load less than 400 copies/ml prior to HAART initiation; and who had at least one follow-up viral-load measurement 30–365 days after initiating HAART.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Analytic variables and definitions

The primary exposure variable for the current analysis was the initial NNRTI used. Patients were defined as being on efavirenz-based or nevirapine-based HAART from the first pharmacy claim authorized until authorization for that drug lapsed for 30 days, another NNRTI or protease inhibitor was prescribed and authorized by Aid for AIDS, or study end (1 September 2004).

The primary outcome was time to virologic failure, defined as two separate (consecutive or nonconsecutive) measurements of viral load 400 copies/ml at least, each more than 6 months after HAART initiation, or switch to another NNRTI or protease inhibitor after at least one such measurement. Patients who had a single viral load more than 400 copies/ml and who died or were subsequently lost to follow-up or censored were not eligible to be ‘virologic failures’, except in the time-to-failure analyses for those patients who switched regimens. Secondary outcomes included time to all-cause mortality, time to viral-load suppression less than 400 copies/ml, and discontinuation of initial NNRTI without virologic failure. During the follow-up period, deaths were identified as noted above. Potential confounders evaluated are shown in Table 1.

Pharmacy-claim adherence was expressed as a percentage, calculated as the number of months with HAART claims submitted divided by the number of complete months from HAART commencement to death, withdrawal from Aid for AIDS, or study end, with the result multiplied by 100. Depending on the analysis, pharmacy-claim adherence was analyzed as a binary variable with a cut-off of 100, 90, or 80%; or in discrete predefined strata; or as a continuous variable for more than 50% adherence. Of note, adherence based on pharmacy data has been validated with medication electronic monitor system (MEMS caps) adherence [21] and therapeutic drug levels [22,23], and it reliably predicts virologic success [5,17,24–26], drug resistance [27], and survival [16,28,29].

Back to Top | Article Outline
Statistical analysis

Differences in baseline characteristics were assessed with two-sample Student's t tests (continuous variables with normal distributions on visual inspection), Wilcoxon rank-sum (other continuous variables), and χ2 tests (categorical variables). Kaplan–Meier plots were used to estimate outcome probability according to initial NNRTI and adherence status (100 versus <100%; >90 versus <90%; >80 versus <80%). Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model the individual and simultaneous effects of the initial NNRTI, baseline variables, and pharmacy-claim adherence on time to virologic failure, viral suppression, and regimen discontinuation. Plots of −log[−log(survival)] against log(analysis time) and analyses of scaled Schoenfeld residuals were used to assess the proportionality assumption (P = 0.67 for efavirenz versus nevirapine on time to virologic failure). All available variables were included a priori in multivariate models and were stratified into discrete categories: sex (male/female), race (black/other), CD4 cell count (≤50, 51–200, or >200 cells/μl), viral load (> or <5 log10 copies/ml), prior history of antiretroviral therapy for pMTCT (yes/no), initial NRTI combination (zidovudine/lamivudine, stavudine/lamivudine, stavudine/didanosine, or zidovudine/didanosine), and date of HAART initiation (in four calendar-year strata). Interactions were tested by including multiplicative terms in regression models. All P-values reported are exact and two-tailed, with a value of less than 0.05 considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA Release 8.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Ethical approvals

The present study was approved by the University of Cape Town Research Ethics Committee, the Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health's Committee on Human Research, and by the Aid for AIDS Clinical Advisory Committee, Cape Town, South Africa.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Of 2817 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 1822 (64.7%) were started on efavirenz and 995 (35.5%) on nevirapine (Table 1). Compared with patients started on efavirenz, those on nevirapine were significantly younger, were more likely to be female, were less immunosuppressed (median CD4 cell counts: 171 cells/μl, on nevirapine; 136 cells/μl, on efavirenz), had lower viral loads at baseline (median 5.1 log10 copies/ml, on nevirapine, versus 5.2, on efavirenz), started treatment earlier in calendar time, and were more likely to receive zidovudine/lamivudine (P < 0.01 for all comparisons; Table 1).

The two groups did not differ in frequency of viral-load measurements [median 1.08 per year, interquartile range (IQR) 0.59–1.60, for nevirapine; 1.10, 0.71–1.58, for efavirenz; P = 0.15] or time to first post-HAART viral-load measurement (median 122 days, IQR 92–209, for nevirapine; 114 days, 92–204, for efavirenz; P = 0.19). Women with baseline CD4 cell counts 250 cells/μl at least were more likely to be started on nevirapine (n = 157, 23.4%) than efavirenz (n = 203, 18.5%). Exclusion of these patients did not materially change results.

Median (IQR) length of follow-up was 1.9 (1.0–2.6) years for the nevirapine group and 2.0 (1.3–2.6) years for patients started on efavirenz (P = 0.006 for difference; Table 1). During this time, patients started on nevirapine were significantly less likely than those on efavirenz to achieve high adherence, whether defined as 100% (30.2 versus 38.1%, P < 0.002) or more than 90% (44.8 versus 49.4%, P < 0.02). Patients started on nevirapine were also more likely to experience virologic failure (20.4 versus 13.8%) and NNRTI discontinuation without virologic failure (15.4 versus 8.9%). Crude proportions of patients who died (2.3% for nevirapine versus 1.8% for efavirenz) or were lost to follow-up (10.4 versus 11.6%) were comparable (Fig. 1), as was the median (IQR) gain in CD4 cell count among 510 patients who had a CD4 cell count measurement between 9 and 15 months post-HAART while still on their initial NNRTI regimen [gain of 173 cells/μl (94–283) on nevirapine versus 168 (72–310) on efavirenz].

After adjusting for other variables, patients started on efavirenz had a significantly shorter time to virologic suppression (<400 copies/ml) than did those treated with nevirapine [median: 4.8 months versus 5.5 months, respectively; multivariate hazard ratio (HR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15–1.40] (Table 2). Similarly, patients started on nevirapine were more likely to experience virologic failure than those on efavirenz (HR 1.52, 1.24–1.86, P < 0.001). Exclusion of patients with only one viral-load measurement from analyses of virologic failure did not materially impact our findings (HR 1.65, 1.34–2.02). Other variables significantly associated with faster time to virologic failure in multivariate analysis included lower baseline CD4 cell counts (HR 1.52, 1.16–1.99, P = 0.004, for ≤50 versus >200 cells/μl), initial use of stavudine/didanosine (HR 1.48, 1.15–1.91, P = 0.001, versus zidovudine/lamivudine) or zidovudine/didanosine (HR 2.35, 1.07–5.18, P = 0.03), calendar year of HAART initiation (HR 1.57, 1.29–1.90, P < 0.001, per later year), and pharmacy-claim adherence (HR 11.74, 8.48–16.25, P < 0.001, for <50 versus 100% adherence).

The increased risk of virologic failure associated with nevirapine was restricted to patients with less than 90% adherence in univariate analysis (Fig. 2); however, a test for interaction between NNRTI and adherence was not statistically significant (P = 0.37), and an increased risk of failure on nevirapine was observed in all patients after adjustment for potential confounders (multivariate HR 1.46, 1.17–1.84, for <90% adherence; 1.63, 1.04–2.54, for ≥90% adherence). Patients initially treated with nevirapine also had a significantly higher risk of both death (multivariate HR 2.17, 1.31–3.60, P < 0.001) and of NNRTI discontinuation in the absence of virologic failure (multivariate HR 1.67, 1.32–2.11, P < 0.001) than did patients initially treated with efavirenz. In an analysis that did not censor individuals at the date of stopping/switching NNRTI (i.e., using baseline regimen alone), the association between NNRTI regimen and risk of virologic failure was attenuated (multivariate HR 1.20, 0.97–1.48, P = 0.10).

In a secondary analysis, we compared outcomes in patients who switched from efavirenz to nevirapine or vice versa, excluding patients who had no viral-load measurement after switch or who switched NNRTI after achieving virologic suppression and subsequently experiencing virologic failure (viral load ≥400 copies/ml). Of 177 eligible patients, 54 (34.2%) switched, whereas virologically suppressed (last known viral-load measurement <400 copies/ml). Of these 54, four of 18 (22.2%) who switched from nevirapine to efavirenz had a single viral-load measurement 400 copies/ml at least, and none experienced virologic failure, as defined here, over a median 0.81 (IQR 0.65–1.49) years of follow-up. By contrast, nine of the 36 patients (25.0%) who switched from efavirenz to nevirapine had at least one viral-load measurement 400 copies/ml at least, and five (13.9%) experienced virologic failure over a median 0.93 (IQR 0.53–1.40) years of follow-up. In time-to-event analysis, the univariate hazard of virologic failure was 3.92 (95% CI 1.61–9.55) for patients who switched to nevirapine compared with those who remained on efavirenz.

The remaining 123 (65.8%) of 177 patients switched NNRTIs before achieving known virologic suppression (Fig. 1); 78 (63.4%) of these had no viral-load measurement between HAART initiation and NNRTI switch. After adjusting for confounders, including time to next viral-load measurement, those patients switching from nevirapine to efavirenz before virologic suppression had a chance of subsequent suppression comparable with those remaining on nevirapine (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65–1.13). In contrast, those switching from efavirenz to nevirapine before virologic suppression achieved suppression significantly more slowly than those who remained on efavirenz (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35–0.93) (Fig. 3).

Back to Top | Article Outline


The present observational study from a private-sector HIV/AIDS disease-management program in southern Africa has shown that initial use of nevirapine was associated with a 52% greater risk of virologic failure and more than double risk of all-cause mortality compared with efavirenz, after adjusting for many potential confounders in a population for whom short-course HAART, not single-dose nevirapine, was the standard of care for pMTCT.

These data are consistent with comparable studies from the developed world. The Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration (ART-CC), which combined data from 12 HIV/AIDS cohort studies, found that patients who started with nevirapine-based regimens were approximately twice as likely at 6 months to have a detectable viral load or to die than those started on efavirenz [4]. However, the ART-CC study could not control for adherence, perhaps the most important determinant of treatment outcome. A study of Veterans Affairs patients (97% male) in the United States did examine adherence and also reported worse virologic and immunologic outcomes with nevirapine than with efavirenz [5]. However, this Veterans Affairs study did not evaluate virologic failure after initial suppression and did not report clinical outcomes [5]. Only two clinical trials have directly compared efavirenz and nevirapine. A small trial in Spain (n = 64) showed no significant difference in the proportion of patients achieving virologic suppression at 48 weeks after starting either nevirapine (64%) or efavirenz (74%) (P = 0.43) [30]. In the larger 2NN trial [3], nevirapine was associated with more serious toxicities and did not satisfy protocol criteria for noninferiority. In addition, among South African participants in 2NN, rates of failure of nevirapine-based (50.0%) and efavirenz-based regimens (38.3%) [3], defined as virologic failure or NNRTI switch, were comparable with the present study's rates of failure to complete follow-up on the initial NNRTI regimen (48.4 and 36.2%, respectively).

Although informative, the results of our secondary analyses on the effects of switching from efavirenz to nevirapine or from nevirapine to efavirenz must be interpreted with caution, given the limited sample size, the low frequency of viral-load measurement, and the confounding potential of physician prescribing patterns (e.g., lead-in dose escalation of nevirapine when switching from efavirenz to nevirapine leading to subtherapeutic nevirapine concentrations due to enzyme induction by residual efavirenz [31]). It would also be helpful to know the clinical indications used for switching regimens, but this information was not available in this database.

Efavirenz's observed advantages have important clinical and public health implications, particularly for resource-limited settings. However, other factors must be weighed, including nevirapine's lower cost, its different side-effect profile, its requirement for more careful clinical and laboratory monitoring [32–34], and its potential for complex drug interactions (e.g., with rifampicin) [35,36]. Furthermore, the currently unquantified teratogenicity of efavirenz [37] should be weighed against the increased risk of virologic failure on nevirapine. A formal cost-effectiveness comparison may be helpful.

The current study has some limitations. First, both unmeasured confounding and bias are risks with any observational study. Of particular concern is selection bias: patients more likely to adhere to HAART may be more likely to be prescribed efavirenz. Temporal bias may also be important, as physicians were more likely to prescribe nevirapine earlier in the study, and adherence counseling and monitoring may have improved over time. Our analysis, however, showed that virologic outcomes did not improve. Additional limitations include small sample size for secondary analyses of clinical outcome and NNRTI switch; measurement of adherence using pharmacy claims alone; exclusion of patients with limited follow-up; a relatively short follow-up period, and the potentially limited generalizability from a private-sector program.

Given the rapid roll out of antiretroviral programs worldwide and the frequent use of first-line nevirapine-based HAART in such programs, the assumption that efavirenz and nevirapine are equally effective needs to be reassessed. There is a critical need for a large, randomized, clinical trial to definitively compare the outcomes of efavirenz and nevirapine, and for acceleration of efforts to develop lower cost formulations of efavirenz, including generic, fixed-dose combinations.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Author contributions: conception and design, J.B.N., R.E.C., G.M.; analysis and interpretation of the data, J.B.N., M.H., L.R., J.G., D.W.D., R.E.C.; drafting of the article, J.B.N., D.W.D., J.G., G.M.; critical revision of the article for important intellectual content, J.B.N., J.G., D.W.D., R.E.C., G.M.; final approval of the article, J.B.N., D.W.D., J.G., M.H., R.E.C., L.R., G.M.; provision of study materials or patients, M.H., L.R.; statistical expertise, J.B.N., D.W.D.; and administrative, technical, or logistic support, R.E.C., L.R.

We are grateful to Joanna Downer, PhD; Roderick Graham, MA; Julio Montaner, MD; Steven Deeks, MD; and Mark Van-Natta, MHS, for critical reading of this manuscript. This paper was given in part as an oral presentation at the 14th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, 25–28 February 2007, Los Angeles, California, USA (MonOrAb#31). J.B.N. had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

J.B.N., R.E.C., and G.M. acknowledge research support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), United States National Institutes of Health (NIH), AI 5535901 and AI 016137. J.B.N. is the recipient of an NIAID/NIH Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Award K23 AI068582-01. D.D. is supported by the NIH Medical Scientist Training Program Award 5 T32 GMO7309. The funders had no input into the results or presentation of the results reported in this manuscript.

Conflict of interest: consultant: R.E.C. (Bristol-Myers Squibb). Consultant and/or honorarium: J.B.N. (GlaxoSmithKline, Merck-Sharp-Dohme) and G.M. (Merck-Sharp-Dohme). Grants received: G.M. (Merck-Sharp-Dohme). Other: J.B.N. (Aspen Pharmaceuticals); J.E.G.: Grants/Research Support (Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Tibotec), consultant and/or honorarium (Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Roche, Abbott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Schering Plough, Pfizer, and Tibotec).

Sources of support: The work described herein was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the NIH Medical Scientist Training Program.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. World Health Organization (WHO). Scaling up antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings: treatment guidelines for a public health approach. 2006 Revision. Geneva: WHO; 2006.
2. Gilks CF, Crowley S, Ekpini R, Gove S, Perriens J, Souteyrand Y, et al. The WHO public-health approach to antiretroviral treatment against HIV in resource-limited settings. Lancet 2006; 368:505–510.
3. Van Leth P, Phanuphak P, Ruxrungtham K, Baraldi E, Miller S, Gazzard B, et al, for the 2NN Study Team. Comparison of first-line antiretroviral therapy with regimens including nevirapine, efavirenz, or both drugs, plus stavudine and lamivudine: A randomised open-label trial, the 2NN Study. Lancet 2004; 363:1253–1263.
4. The Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration (ART-CC). Rates of disease progression according to initial highly active antiretroviral therapy regimen: a collaborative analysis of 12 prospective cohort studies. J Infect Dis 2006; 194: 612–622.
5. Braithwaite RS, Kozal MJ, Chang CC, Roberts MS, Fultz SL, Goetz MB, et al. Adherence, virological and immunological outcomes for HIV-infected veterans starting combination antiretroviral therapies. AIDS 2007; 21:1579–1589.
6. Bartlett JA, Fath MJ, DeMasi R, Hermes A, Quinn J, Mondou E, et al. An updated systematic overview of triple combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults. AIDS 2006; 20:2051–2064.
7. Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services. 29 January 2008. pp. 1–128. http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf. [Accessed 21 March 2008].
8. Hammer SM, Saag MS, Schechter M, Montaner JS, Schooley RT, Jacobsen DM, et al. Treatment for adult HIV infection: 2006 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA panel. JAMA 2006; 296:827–843.
9. Staszewski S, Morales-Ramirez J, Tashima KT, Rachlis A, Skiest D, Stanford J, et al. Efavirenz plus zidovudine and lamivudine, efavirenz plus indinavir, and indinavir plus zidovudine plus lamivudine in the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:1865–1873.
10. Gulick RM, Ribaudo HJ, Shikuma CM, Lustgarten S, Squires KE, Meyer WA 3rd, et al. Triple-nucleoside regimens versus efavirenz-containing regimens for the initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:1850–1861.
11. Gallant JE, Staszewski S, Pozniak AL, DeJesus E, Suleiman JM, Miller MD, et al. Efficacy and safety of tenofovir DF vs. stavudine in combination therapy in antiretroviral therapy-naïve patients: a 3-year randomized trial. JAMA 2004; 292:191–201.
12. Pozniak A, Gallant JE, DeJesus E, Arribas JR, Gazzard B, Campo RE, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz versus fixed-dose zidovudine/lamivudine and efavirenz in antiretroviral-naive patients: virologic, immunologic, and morphologic changes – a 96-week analysis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2006; 43:535–540.
13. Oyugi JH, Byakika-Tusiime J, Ragland K, Laeyendecker O, Mugerwa R, Kityo C, et al. Treatment interruptions predict resistance in HIV-positive individuals purchasing fixed-dose combination antiretroviral therapy in Kampala, Uganda. AIDS 2007; 21:965–971.
14. Antiretroviral therapy price list. http://www.aidforaids.co.za/pages/4-clinical%20care/AFA%20Pricelist.pdf. [Accessed 29 July 2007].
15. Nachega JB, Hislop M, Dowdy D, Chaisson R, Regensberg L, Maartens G. Adherence to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase-based HIV therapy and virologic outcomes. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146:564–573.
16. Nachega JB, Hislop M, Dowdy DW, Lo M, Saad OM, Regensberg L, et al. Adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy assessed by pharmacy claims predicts survival in HIV-infected South African adults. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2006; 43:78–84.
17. AfA Clinical Guidelines. http://www.aidforaids.co.za. [Accessed 29 October 2006].
18. De Santis M, Carducci B, De Santis L, Cavaliere AF, Straface G. Periconceptional exposure to efavirenz and neural tube defects. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:355.
19. Saitoh A, Hull AD, Franklin P, Spector SA. Myelomeningocele in an infant with intrauterine exposure to efavirenz. J Perinatol 2005; 25:555–556.
20. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Important change in SUSTIVA (efavirenz) package insert – change from pregnancy category C to D. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; March 2005.
21. Choo PW, Rand CS, Inui TS, Lee ML, Cain E, Cordeiro-Breault M, et al. Validation of patient reports, automated pharmacy records, and pill counts with electronic monitoring of adherence to antihypertensive therapy. Med Care 1999; 37:846–857.
22. Steiner JF, Koepsell TD, Fihn SD, Inui TS. A general method of compliance assessment using centralized pharmacy records: description and validation. Med Care 1988; 26:814–823.
23. Steiner JF, Prochazka AV. The assessment of refill compliance using pharmacy records: methods, validity, and applications. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50:105–116.
24. Low-Beer S, Yip B, O'Shaughnessy MV, Hogg RS, Montaner JS. Adherence to triple therapy and viral load response. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2000; 23:360–361.
25. Gross R, Yip B, Lo Re V 3rd, Wood E, Alexander CS, Harrigan PR, et al. A simple, dynamic measure of antiretroviral therapy adherence predicts failure to maintain HIV-1 suppression. J Infect Dis 2006; 194:1108–1114.
26. Grossberg R, Zhang YW, Gross R. A time-to-prescription-refill measure of antiretroviral adherence predicted changes in viral load in HIV. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57:1107–1110.
27. Harrigan PR, Hogg RS, Dong WW, Yip B, Wynhoven B, Woodward J, et al. Predictors of HIV drug-resistance mutations in a large antiretroviral-naive cohort initiating triple antiretroviral therapy. J Infect Dis 2005; 191:339–347.
28. Hogg RS, Heath K, Bangsberg DR, Yip B, Press N, O'Shaughnessy MV, et al. Intermittent use of triple-combination therapy is predictive of mortality at baseline and after 1 year of follow-up. AIDS 2002; 16:1051–1058.
29. Wood E, Hogg RS, Yip B, Moore D, Harrigan PR, Montaner JSG. Impact of baseline viral load and adherence on survival of HIV-infected adults with baseline CD4 cell counts ≥200 cells/μL. AIDS 2006; 20:1117–1123.
30. Nunez M, Soriano V, Martin-Carbonero L, Barrios A, Barreiro P, Blanco F, et al. SENC (Spanish efavirenz vs nevirapine comparison) trial: a randomized, open-label study in HIV-infected naïve individuals. HIV Clin Trials 2002; 3:186–194.
31. Winston A, Pozniak A, Smith N, Fletcher C, Mandalia S, Parmar D, et al. Dose escalation or immediate full dose when switching from efavirenz to nevirapine-based highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected individuals? AIDS 2004; 18:572–574.
32. Hitti J, Frenkel LM, Stek AM, Nachman SA, Baker D, Gonzalez-Garcia A, et al, for the PACTG 1022 Study Team. Maternal toxicity with continuous nevirapine in pregnancy: results from PACTG 1022. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004; 36:772–776.
33. Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ridgefield, CT – Viramune [Package Insert]. Warning about increased risk of hepatotoxicity in HIV-infected women with CD4 count greater than 250 cells/mm3.
34. South African Department of Health. Guidelines on Antiretroviral Therapy 2004. Pretoria, South Africa: Ministry of Health; 2004.
35. Cohen K, Cutsem G, Boulle A, McIlleron H, Goemare E, Smith PJ, et al. Effect of rifampicin-based antitubercular therapy on nevirapine plasma concentrations in South African adults with HIV-associated tuberculosis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 61:389–393.
36. Boulle A, Van Cutsem G, Cohen K, Hilderbrand K, Mathee S, Abrahams M, et al. Outcomes of nevirapine- and efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy when co-administered with rifampicin-based antitubercular therapy. JAMA 2008; 530–539.
37. Bussmann H, Wester CW, Wester NC, Lekoko B, Okezie O, Thomas AM, et al. Pregnancy rates and birth outcomes among women on efavirenz-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy in Botswana. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007; 45:269–273.

Cited By:

This article has been cited 2 time(s).

Safety of efavirenz in first-trimester of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes from observational cohorts
Ford, N; Mofenson, L; Kranzer, K; Medu, L; Frigati, L; Mills, EJ; Calmy, A
AIDS, 24(10): 1461-1470.
PDF (322) | CrossRef
Birth defects following exposure to efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy during pregnancy: a study at a regional South African hospital
Bera, E; McCausland, K; Nonkwelo, R; Mgudlwa, B; Chacko, S; Majeke, B
AIDS, 24(2): 283-289.
PDF (325) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline

efavirenz; effectiveness; highly active antiretroviral therapy; nevirapine; Southern Africa

© 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.