Efavirenz (EFV) has been widely used as part of triple-combination first-line therapy for over 15 years and is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO)1 and national guidelines in both low- and high-income countries2,3 as a preferred antiretroviral drug for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-positive individuals. This preference is justified by its high virological efficacy,4 availability as a fixed-dose combination and once-daily administration, compatibility with tuberculosis treatment,5 reassuring data regarding its safety in pregnancy,6 and better safety profile compared with the widely used alternative, nevirapine.7
With the recent development of new drugs with potentially improved efficacy and safety, the preference given to EFV in initial HIV therapy has come into question. Results of several trials comparing EFV with recently developed antiretroviral agents have suggested inferiority,8–10 and this has led to calls to challenge EFV as the preferred drug for first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART).11–13 Nevertheless, EFV is a widely used drug in both high- and low-income settings, and the risk of severe adverse events overall is not well characterized.
We conducted this systematic review to comprehensively evaluate the safety of EFV compared with other antiretroviral agents in first-line therapy and to describe the frequency of neuropsychiatric adverse events among patients exposed to EFV.
This review and meta-analysis was conducted after a predefined protocol (see Appendix, Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/QAI/A669) and followed criteria of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses group.14
We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials that compared EFV irrespective of dose against non-EFV–based regimens as part of an identical backbone combination therapy for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-positive adults and children. We excluded switch studies (ie, studies that compare different regimens in patients once they have achieved virological suppression) and studies that only included patients with specific comorbidities that may influence outcomes, such as patients with underlying neuropsychiatric disorders or substance misuse. No geographical, age, or language restrictions were applied.
Search Strategy and study Selection
Using a sensitive search strategy including terms for adverse drug events,15 randomized trials, and EFV, the following databases were searched from inception to October 1, 2014: MEDLINE through PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Bibliographies of review articles and included studies were also screened. One investigator (N.F.) screened initial searches by title, and abstract and final inclusions were verified by a second investigator (Z.S.).
Data were abstracted using a prepiloted data extraction form by 1 investigator (N.F.) and verified by a second investigator (Z.S., C.K.). The primary outcome was drug discontinuation as a result of any adverse event; secondary outcomes were severe (grade, 3–4) clinical adverse events, severe laboratory adverse events, and toxicity-related mortality. Severity was defined according to study definitions; where this was lacking, and where possible, the Division of AIDS Table for Grading the Severity of Adult and Pediatric Adverse Events was applied.16 Because of the specific concern regarding neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with EFV, the proportion of patients experiencing neuropsychiatric adverse events was estimated by event for all patients receiving EFV. Data on the following specific neuropsychiatric adverse events were extracted: dizziness, insomnia, somnolence, abnormal dreams, impaired concentration, depression, anxiety, headache, and suicidality. Data on study characteristics and relevant indicators of potential risk of bias were also extracted according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials,17 and the overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework.18
Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated for the proportion of patients experiencing each outcome. For the comparison of EFV and non-EFV based regimens, we calculated the relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD), and corresponding 95% CIs for each outcome and pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis.19 For the RR assessment, comparator drugs no longer recommended by the WHO guidelines for ART were dropped from the analysis (aplaviroc, fosamprenavir, indinavir, lersivirine, nelfinavir, and stavudine)1; however, the EFV arms of these trials were retained for the assessment of the proportion of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with EFV. For this analysis, proportions were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis after appropriate transformation of the data.20,21 Publication bias was assessed for the primary outcome of treatment discontinuation by funnel plot and the Eggers test for small study effects.22 Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, which describes the percentage of variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than due to chance.23
All analyses were conducted using Stata version 12.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX) and GRADE Pro (www.gradeworkinggroup.org).
Characteristics of Included Studies
From an initial screen of 651 titles and abstracts, 42 trials were taken through for review (Fig. 1). Studies were published between 2002 and 2014, trial size ranged from 47 to 1771 participants (mean, 303), and trial duration ranged from 12 to 280 weeks (mean, 78 weeks). Overall, the systematic review provided information on 8466 adult patients exposed to EFV and 9631 adult patients exposed to the comparator drug. Trials compared EFV against 19 different comparator drugs across 5 different classes, most frequently nevirapine (9 studies) and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (7 studies). Seventeen studies were single-country trials of which 8 were conducted in low- and middle-income settings while the remainder were multisite trials. Six trials compared EFV against comparator drugs that are no longer recommended by WHO guidelines24–28 or drugs whose development has been discontinued,29,30 and these were excluded from the RR analysis. One trial that compared abacavir against EFV published different combinations of results in 3 separate articles,4,31,32 but only one of these provided data could be evaluated against our inclusion criteria (EFV vs comparator with identical backbone regimen).31 Two studies compared standard dose EFV (600 mg) against a reduced dose, either as an initial stepped-dose33 or throughout the duration of the trial.34 No pediatric trials were identified that met our inclusion criteria.
Study quality was rated as moderate for the primary outcome of discontinuations. Most studies (81%) failed to report on approach to allocation concealment, and only a third of studies (33%) blinded participants and patients. Loss to follow-up was less than 10% for the majority (74%) of studies and in most instances was nondifferential (79%); and for the majority of trials (86%), there was no evidence of selection bias or outcome reporting (86%). There was some statistical evidence of publication bias (0.06 using Egger test for funnel plot asymmetry). Included studies are listed in Table S1 (see Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/QAI/A669).
Risk and Frequency of Adverse Events
Primary Outcome: Treatment discontinuations
Thirty-seven studies5,8–10,25,33,34,35–66 comprising 7734 patients exposed to EFV and 842 patients exposed to a comparator ARV drug contributed to the assessment of discontinuations due to adverse events. A lower risk of discontinuations due to adverse drug reactions was seen with EFV compared with nevirapine (RR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5 to 0.9; RD: −3.6, 95% CI: −6.6 to −0.6). Discontinuations were greater for EFV compared with low-dose EFV (RR: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.3 to 7.7; RD: 4.0, 95% CI: 1.0 to 7.0), rilpivirine (RR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0 to 3.8; RD: 4.1, 95% CI: 1.3 to 6.8), tenofovir (RR: 3.6, 95% CI: 1.4 to 9.6; RD: 7.7, 95% CI: 2.4 to 13.0), atazanavir (RR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.8; RD: 2.6, 95% CI: 0.6 to 4.6), and maraviroc (RR: 3.3, 95% CI: 1.9 to 5.7; RD: 9.4, 95% CI: 5.3 to 13.5). The RR of discontinuation was greater for EFV compared with dolutegravir (RR: 4.3, 95% CI: 2.2 to 8.3) and raltegravir (RR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.1 to 6.9), but absolute risks were not significantly different. These results are summarized in Figure 2 and Table 1.
Severe Adverse Events
There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of severe clinical adverse events for any drug comparison. The absolute risk of severe laboratory adverse events was lower comparing EFV with atazanavir/r (RD: −77.1, 95% CI: −91.9 to −62.4) and higher comparing EFV with dolutegravir (2.8, 95% CI: 0.2 to 5.3), but relative differences were not significant for these comparisons and no other differences were observed.
Ten deaths reported by 5 trials were considered to be at least possibly related to study drug. EFV was associated with 7 deaths: 3 deaths were attributed to severe lactic acidosis among 3 overweight women (body mass index >25 kg/m2)64; 1 patient died of hepatotoxicity 14 weeks after treatment initiation55; 1 patient died of sepsis 5 weeks after treatment initiation that was considered possibly related to study drug34; 1 patient died of lactic acidosis25; and 1 patient died of hepatic steatosis associated with hepatitis C coinfection.25 The other 3 deaths were all associated with nevirapine and resulted from fulminant hepatitis secondary to hospitalization after Steven–Johnsons syndrome,62 lactic acidosis,25 and progressive neuropathic syndrome.25
Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events
Neuropsychiatric adverse events of any grade were common, affecting 29.6% of patients (95% CI: 21.9% to 37.3%), and 6.1% of these events (95% CI: 4.3% to 7.9%) were considered to be severe. With the exception of dizziness, fewer than 10% of patients experienced any specific type of neuropsychiatric adverse event; 12.8% of patients experienced dizziness (95% CI: 9.1% to 16.5%), and this was the only event that was found in subgroup analysis to occur more frequently in the first 48 weeks compared with a longer duration of follow-up (16.2, 95% CI: 11.0% to 21.3% vs 5.1, 95% CI: 1.2% to 9.0%). Severe neuropsychiatric adverse events were more common for EFV compared with atazanavir/r (RR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.5 to 3.8; RD: 3.7, 95% CI: 1.8 to 5.5), dolutegravir (RR: 16.7, 95% CI: 2.0 to 137.8; RD: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.4 to 4.6), and maraviroc (RR: 5.3, 95% CI: 1.6 to 18.1; RD: 3.6, 95% CI: 1.3 to 5.9), and absolute differences were also higher for EFV compared with abacavir (RD: 6.0, 95% CI: 2.4 to 9.6). No other differences were observed. The proportion of neuropsychiatric adverse events is summarized in Figure 3.
This systematic review found that over 90% of patients remained on an EFV-based first-line regimen after an average follow-up time of 78 weeks. The RR of discontinuations due to adverse events however was higher for patients on EFV compared with other first-line options that included tenofovir, abacavir, dolutegravir, raltegravir, or rilpivirine as a third component of the regimen, and when compared with low-dose EFV. The absolute difference in discontinuations was low, with less than 5% for most comparisons. No difference in severe clinical adverse events was found for any comparison.
Consistent with expectations, neuropsychiatric adverse events were more common, with almost a third of patients receiving EFV experiencing a neuropsychiatric adverse event of any grade of severity, mainly dizziness and abnormal dreams. This underscores the need for adherence counseling to prepare patients for the possibility of occurrence of such events, which are mild and short-term in most patients, and to provide alternatives in case of intolerance.67
The low rate of suicidality in this review contrasts with a recent study that reported a 2-fold increased hazard of suicidality associated with EFV use (1.5 vs 0.7 for non-EFV regimens in intent-to-treat analysis).68 This study reanalyzed data from 4 clinical trials, 3 of which are included in this review31,40,55; the forth trial was excluded from this review because backbone regimens were not comparable.69 Although this remains a concern, the rate of suicide ideation reported by this review was low (0.6%) and no completed suicides were reported in any of the evaluated studies, similar to the recent findings from a multisite cohort study documenting adverse events among patients on ART across Europe, Australia, and the United States.70
This review used a broad search strategy across several databases that allowed for the evaluation of outcomes for almost 9000 patients exposed to EFV. The fact that this review was limited to data from randomized trials is both strength and limitation. Well-conducted randomized trials are the most reliable way to limit the influence of bias and confounding in the interpretation of results; however, trials are often underpowered to assess adverse events, and this is reflected in the wide CIs around the majority of individual estimates. Trials may impose inclusion criteria on trial participants that could limit the generalizability of findings (for example by excluding patients considered the most at risk of adverse events; in this case patients with depression, pre-existing central nervous system [CNS] disease, and so on), and although there was little evidence of patient selection that could influence outcomes of interest, moderate heterogeneity was apparent and may reflect underlying differences in trial populations.71 It should be noted that the majority of trials included in this review were done in white populations and differences in metabolism in African and Asian populations may lead to a higher rate of CNS adverse events,72 although in a post hoc subgroup analysis there was no apparent difference in the proportion of severe adverse events by geographic region. Finally, adverse event reporting in clinical trials of antiretrovirals is subject to large variability and a lack of standardization in the reporting of type and severity of adverse events73 and this was a limitation for this review, particularly with respect to the consistency and quality of reporting of CNS events. Finally, the comparative evaluations for specific drugs were limited by the amount of information available for certain comparisons, and lack of statistical significance may for some comparisons be the result of insufficient power to detect differences in rare events.
In conclusion, this review finds that EFV use is associated with a higher risk of treatment discontinuation compared with a number of other antiretroviral drugs, with a greater (and expected) frequency of CNS events. Although most CNS events were mild, and suicide ideation is rare, even mild adverse events are a concern from a public health perspective because they may lead to decreased adherence to treatment.74 Future decisions about keeping or replacing EFV in first-line therapy, particularly in low- and middle-income settings, should take into account other factors, such as the good virological efficacy, low cost, availability as once-daily combination, compatibility with tuberculosis drugs, and wide experience of using this antiretroviral drug.
1. World Health Organization. Consolidated Guidelines on the Use of Antiretroviral Drugs for Treating and Preventing HIV Infection. Recommendations for a Public Health Approach. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2013.
2. Nelson LJ, Beusenberg M, Habiyambere V, et al.. Adoption of national recommendations related to use of antiretroviral therapy before and shortly following the launch of the 2013 WHO consolidated guidelines. AIDS. 2014;28(suppl 2):S217–S224.
3. Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf
. Accessed April 27, 2015.
4. Gulick RM, Ribaudo HJ, Shikuma CM, 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.
5. Bonnet M, Bhatt N, Baudin E, et al.. Nevirapine versus efavirenz for patients co-infected with HIV and tuberculosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:303–312.
6. Ford N, Mofenson L, Shubber Z, et al.. Safety of efavirenz in the first trimester of pregnancy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS. 2014;28(suppl 2):S123–131.
7. Shubber Z, Calmy A, Andrieux-Meyer I, et al.. Adverse events associated with nevirapine and efavirenz-based first-line antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS. 2013;27:1403–1412.
8. Cohen CJ, Andrade-Villanueva J, Clotet B, et al.. Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2011;378:229–237.
9. Molina JM, Cahn P, Grinsztejn B, et al.. Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with tenofovir and emtricitabine in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (ECHO): a phase 3 randomised double-blind active-controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378:238–246.
10. Walmsley SL, Antela A, Clumeck N, et al.. Dolutegravir plus abacavir-lamivudine for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1807–1818.
11. Raffi F, Pozniak AL, Wainberg MA. Has the time come to abandon efavirenz for first-line antiretroviral therapy? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:1742–1747.
12. Pozniak AL, Arribas JR. FLAMINGO: how much rosier can antiretroviral therapy get? Lancet. 2014;383:2191–2193.
13. Raffi F, Reynes J. Antiretroviral treatment French guidelines 2013: economics influencing science. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:1158–1161.
14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al.. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
15. Golder S, Loke Y. Search strategies to identify information on adverse effects: a systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009;97:84–92.
16. Division of AIDS. Table for grading the severity of adult and pediatric adverse events. Version 1.0, December, 2004; clarification August 2009. Available at: http://rsc.tech-res.com/Document/safetyandpharmacovigilance/Table_for_Grading_Severity_of_Adult_Pediatric_Adverse_Events.pdf
. Accessed April 27, 2015.
17. Higgins JPT, A D, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (Updated 2011). Chichester, United Kingdom: The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
. Accessed April 27, 2015.
18. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al.. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–926.
19. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188.
20. Freeman MFTJ. Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Ann Inst Stat Mathematics. 1950;21:607–611.
21. Miller J. The inverse of the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Am Stat. 1978;32:138.
22. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, et al.. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002.
23. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al.. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–560.
24. Bartlett JA, Johnson J, Herrera G, et al.. Long-term results of initial therapy with abacavir and Lamivudine combined with Efavirenz, Amprenavir/Ritonavir, or Stavudine. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;43:284–292.
25. INITIO Trial International Co-ordinating Committee, Yeni P, Cooper DA, et al.. Virological and immunological outcomes at 3 years after starting antiretroviral therapy with regimens containing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, protease inhibitor, or both in INITIO: open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2006;368:287–298.
26. Maggiolo F, Ripamonti D, Gregis G, et al.. Once-a-day therapy for HIV infection: a controlled, randomized study in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients. Antivir Ther. 2003;8:339–346.
27. Tashima K, Staszewski S, Nelson M, et al.. Efficacy and tolerability of long-term efavirenz plus nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors for HIV-1 infection. AIDS. 2008;22:275–279.
28. Kumar P, Dejesus E, Huhn G, et al.. Evaluation of cardiovascular biomarkers in a randomized trial of fosamprenavir/ritonavir vs. efavirenz with abacavir/lamivudine in underrepresented, antiretroviral-naive, HIV-infected patients (SUPPORT): 96-week results. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:269.
29. Currier J, Lazzarin A, Sloan L, et al.. Antiviral activity and safety of aplaviroc with lamivudine/zidovudine in HIV-infected, therapy-naive patients: the ASCENT (CCR102881) study. Antivir Ther. 2008;13:297–306.
30. Vernazza P, Wang C, Pozniak A, et al.. Efficacy and safety of lersivirine (UK-453,061) versus efavirenz in antiretroviral treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: week 48 primary analysis results from an ongoing, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase IIb trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;62:171–179.
31. Clifford DB, Evans S, Yang Y, et al.. Long-term impact of efavirenz on neuropsychological performance and symptoms in HIV-infected individuals (ACTG 5097s). HIV Clin Trials. 2009;10:343–355.
32. Gulick RM, Ribaudo HJ, Shikuma CM, et al.. Three- vs four-drug antiretroviral regimens for the initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2006;296:769–781.
33. Gutierrez-Valencia A, Viciana P, Palacios R, et al.. Stepped-dose versus full-dose efavirenz for HIV infection and neuropsychiatric adverse events: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:149–156.
34. Group ES, Puls R, Amin J, et al.. Efficacy of 400 mg efavirenz versus standard 600 mg dose in HIV-infected, antiretroviral-naive adults (ENCORE1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2014;383:1474–1482.
35. Go F, Dykeman M, Santos J, et al.. Supporting clients on methadone maintenance treatment: a systematic review of nurse's role. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2011;18:17–27.
36. Andersson LM, Vesterbacka J, Blaxhult A, et al.. Lopinavir/ritonavir, atazanavir/ritonavir, and efavirenz in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected individuals over 144 weeks: an open-label randomized controlled trial. Scand J Infect Dis. 2013;45:543–551.
37. Clifford DB, Evans S, Yang Y, et al.. Impact of efavirenz on neuropsychological performance and symptoms in HIV-infected individuals. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143:714–721.
38. Cohen C, Elion R, Ruane P, et al.. Randomized, phase 2 evaluation of two single-tablet regimens elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the initial treatment of HIV infection. AIDS. 2011;25:F7–F12.
39. Cohen C, Wohl D, Arribas JR, et al.. Week 48 results from a randomized clinical trial of rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vs. efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected adults. AIDS. 2014;28:989–997.
40. Daar ES, Tierney C, Fischl MA, et al.. Atazanavir plus ritonavir or efavirenz as part of a 3-drug regimen for initial treatment of HIV-1. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:445–456.
41. Echeverria P, Negredo E, Carosi G, et al.. Similar antiviral efficacy and tolerability between efavirenz and lopinavir/ritonavir, administered with abacavir/lamivudine (Kivexa), in antiretroviral-naive patients: a 48-week, multicentre, randomized study (Lake Study). Antivir Res. 2010;85:403–408.
42. Fischl MA, Ribaudo HJ, Collier AC, et al.. A randomized trial of 2 different 4-drug antiretroviral regimens versus a 3-drug regimen, in advanced human immunodeficiency virus disease. J Infect Dis. 2003;188:625–634.
43. Gallant JE, Rodriguez AE, Weinberg WG, et al.. Early virologic nonresponse to tenofovir, abacavir, and lamivudine in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive subjects. J Infect Dis. 2005;192:1921–1930.
44. Gaytan J, dl GE, Garcia M, et al.. Nevirapine or efavirenz en combination with two nucleoside analogues for treatment naive HIV infected patients. Med Int Mex. 2004;20:24–28.
45. Honda M, Ishisaka M, Ishizuka N, et al.. Open-label randomized multicenter selection study of once daily antiretroviral treatment regimen comparing ritonavir-boosted atazanavir to efavirenz with fixed-dose abacavir and lamivudine. Intern Med. 2011;50:699–705.
46. Lennox JL, DeJesus E, Lazzarin A, et al.. Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374:796–806.
47. Mallolas J, Pich J, Penaranda M, et al.. Induction therapy with trizivir plus efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir followed by trizivir alone in naive HIV-1-infected adults. AIDS. 2008;22:377–384.
48. Manosuthi W, Sungkanuparph S, Tantanathip P, et al.. A randomized trial comparing plasma drug concentrations and efficacies between 2 nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-based regimens in HIV-infected patients receiving rifampicin: the N2R Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:1752–1759.
49. Markowitz M, Nguyen BY, Gotuzzo E, et al.. Rapid and durable antiretroviral effect of the HIV-1 Integrase inhibitor raltegravir as part of combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: results of a 48-week controlled study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;46:125–133.
50. Nelson M, Stellbrink HJ, Podzamczer D, et al.. A comparison of neuropsychiatric adverse events during 12 weeks of treatment with etravirine and efavirenz in a treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected population. AIDS. 2011;25:335–340.
51. Nunez M, Soriano V, Martin-Carbonero L, et al.. SENC (Spanish efavirenz vs. nevirapine comparison) trial: a randomized, open-label study in HIV-infected naive individuals. HIV Clin Trials. 2002;3:186–194.
52. Phidisa IIWTfPP; Ratsela A, Polis M, Dhlomo S, et al.. A randomized factorial trial comparing 4 treatment regimens in treatment-naive HIV-infected persons with AIDS and/or a CD4 cell count <200 cells/muL in South Africa. J Infect Dis. 2010;202:1529–1537.
53. Pozniak AL, Morales-Ramirez J, Katabira E, et al.. Efficacy and safety of TMC278 in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 patients: week 96 results of a phase IIb randomized trial. AIDS. 2010;24:55–65.
54. Puls RL, Srasuebkul P, Petoumenos K, et al.. Efavirenz versus boosted atazanavir or zidovudine and abacavir in antiretroviral treatment-naive, HIV-infected subjects: week 48 data from the Altair study. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:855–864.
55. Riddler SA, Haubrich R, DiRienzo AG, et al.. Class-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2095–2106.
56. Sax PE, DeJesus E, Mills A, et al.. Co-formulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir versus co-formulated efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, analysis of results after 48 weeks. Lancet. 2012;379:2439–2448.
57. Sierra-Madero J, Villasis-Keever A, Mendez P, et al.. Prospective, randomized, open label trial of Efavirenz vs Lopinavir/Ritonavir in HIV+ treatment-naive subjects with CD4+<200 cell/mm3 in Mexico. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;53:582–588.
58. Sinha S, Raghunandan P, Chandrashekhar R, et al.. Nevirapine versus efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV and tuberculosis infections in India: a pilot study. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:482.
59. Squires K, Lazzarin A, Gatell JM, et al.. Comparison of once-daily atazanavir with efavirenz, each in combination with fixed-dose zidovudine and lamivudine, as initial therapy for patients infected with HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004;36:1011–1019.
60. Swaminathan S, Padmapriyadarsini C, Venkatesan P, et al.. Efficacy and safety of once-daily nevirapine- or efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy in HIV-associated tuberculosis: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:716–724.
61. van den Berg-Wolf M, Hullsiek KH, Peng G, et al.. Virologic, immunologic, clinical, safety, and resistance outcomes from a long-term comparison of efavirenz-based versus nevirapine-based antiretroviral regimens as initial therapy in HIV-1-infected persons. HIV Clin Trials. 2008;9:324–336.
62. van Leth F, Phanuphak P, Ruxrungtham K, et al.. 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.
63. van Lunzen J, Maggiolo F, Arribas JR, et al.. Once daily dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) in combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV: planned interim 48 week results from SPRING-1, a dose-ranging, randomised, phase 2b trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12:111–118.
64. Wester CW, Thomas AM, Bussmann H, et al.. Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor outcomes among combination antiretroviral therapy-treated adults in Botswana. AIDS. 2010;24(suppl 1):S27–S36.
65. Cooper DA, Heera J, Goodrich J, et al.. Maraviroc versus efavirenz, both in combination with zidovudine-lamivudine, for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive subjects with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 infection. J Infect Dis. 2010;201:803–813.
66. Grinsztejn B, De Castro N, Arnold V, et al.. Raltegravir for the treatment of patients co-infected with HIV and tuberculosis (ANRS 12 180 Reflate TB): a multicentre, phase 2, non-comparative, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14:459–467.
67. Gazzard B, Duvivier C, Zagler C, et al.. Phase 2 double-blind, randomized trial of etravirine versus efavirenz in treatment-naive patients: 48-week results. AIDS. 2011;25:2249–2258.
68. Mollan KR, Smurzynski M, Eron JJ, et al.. Association between efavirenz as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection and increased risk for suicidal ideation or attempted or completed suicide
: an analysis of trial data. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:1–10.
69. Campbell TB, Smeaton LM, Kumarasamy N, et al.. Efficacy and safety of three antiretroviral regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1: a randomized clinical trial in diverse multinational settings. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001290.
70. Smith C, Ryom L, Monforte A, et al.. Lack of association between use of efavirenz and death from suicide
: evidence from the D: A:D study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014;17:19512.
71. Golder S, Loke YK, Bland M. Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1001026.
72. Haas DW, Ribaudo HJ, Kim RB, et al.. Pharmacogenetics of efavirenz and central nervous system side effects: an Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group study. AIDS. 2004;18:2391–2400.
73. Chowers MY, Gottesman BS, Leibovici L, et al.. Reporting of adverse events in randomized controlled trials of highly active antiretroviral therapy: systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;64:239–250.
74. Al-Dakkak I, Patel S, McCann E, et al.. The impact of specific HIV treatment-related adverse events on adherence to antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Care. 2013;25:400–414.