Study of nucleoside-sparing regimens stopped early due to high failure rates; NRTIs likely to remain therapeutic backbone for the time being

This article is more than 19 years old. Click here for more recent articles on this topic

A French study designed originally as a two-year experiment to see if giving patients antiretroviral regimens that excluded the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) would result in lower rates of lipoatrophy (fat loss) has been stopped after a year because of higher failure rates in the NRTI- sparing arm.

The French Hippocampe (‘Seahorse’) study took 117 drug-naive patients and gave half of them regimens containing no NRTIs, a quarter standard NRTI plus non-nucleoside (NNRTI) regimens and the other quarter standard NRTI plus protease inhibitor (PI) regimens.

The NNRTI and PI drugs were restricted to efavirenz (Sustiva) or nevirapine (Viramune) plus boosted lopinavir or indinavir (Crixivan). All NRTIs were allowed in patients that took them except for d4T and ddC, because of their greater mitochondrial toxicity and association with lipoatrophy. About two-thirds of patients took efavirenz and a third nevirapine (63% vs. 37%); about four-fifths of patients on PIs took boosted lopinavir and a fifth boosted indinavir (78.5% vs 21.5%).

Glossary

boosting agent

Booster drugs are used to ‘boost’ the effects of protease inhibitors and some other antiretrovirals. Adding a small dose of a booster drug to an antiretroviral makes the liver break down the primary drug more slowly, which means that it stays in the body for longer times or at higher levels. Without the boosting agent, the prescribed dose of the primary drug would be ineffective.

nucleoside

A precursor to a building block of DNA or RNA. Nucleosides must be chemically changed into nucleotides before they can be used to make DNA or RNA. 

lipoatrophy

Loss of body fat from specific areas of the body, especially from the face, arms, legs, and buttocks.

drug resistance

A drug-resistant HIV strain is one which is less susceptible to the effects of one or more anti-HIV drugs because of an accumulation of HIV mutations in its genotype. Resistance can be the result of a poor adherence to treatment or of transmission of an already resistant virus.

protease inhibitor (PI)

Family of antiretrovirals which target the protease enzyme. Includes amprenavir, indinavir, lopinavir, ritonavir, saquinavir, nelfinavir, and atazanavir.

By the 48th week of the study, when it was stopped by its safety monitoring board, 78.9% of patients in the NRTI-containing arms had viral loads under 50 copies/ml compared with only 61.7% in the NRTI-sparing arm, on an intent-to-treat analysis meaning that any change or discontinuation of the study regime was judged a failure. The NRTI-sparing regimens had been less potent throughout the study, with the proportion with their viral load under 50 copies/ml after 12 weeks, for instance, being 57.9% in the NRTI-containing groups but only 36.7% in the NRTI-sparing one.

The percentage of viral loads under 400 copies/ml was not significantly different between the NRTI-containing and NRTI-sparing arms (83% versus 75%).

Fourteen patients in the NRTI-sparing arm either discontinued the study or had their regimen modified compared with three in the NRTI-containing arms.

On an on-treatment analysis, where only patients remaining on the given study regimen were counted, there was still a significant difference in viral failure rates up to week 36 of the study but this had become non-significant by week 48 because so many had dropped out of the nucleoside-sparing group.

An audience member commented that the results of the NRTI-sparing regimens were surprisingly bad, given that trials using boosted lopinavir as monotherapy had shown better results.

Possible explanations include:

  • A high proportion of patients had low CD4 cell counts at baseline and study co-ordinator Dr Christine Katlama commented that “you need a very potent therapy for CD4 counts under 200 to start with.”
  • Adherence rates were different in the two arms, though not to a degree that reached statistical significance. Seventy-seven per cent of patients taking NRTIs had high (>95%) adherence compared with 72% not taking them.
  • The ethnic mix of the study groups varied. There were 49% black Africans in the NRTI-sparing group compared with 37% in the NRTI-taking group.
  • Resistance tests were not taken at baseline so more patients in the NRTI-sparing group might have had pre-existing resistance; however the number failing with drug resistance was actually surprisingly low, with eight people showing drug resistance, four to non-nucleosides and only one to PIs.

Whether or not these are confounding variables, these results back up those from another study whose results were announced earlier this year (Fischl) where 74% of patients taking efavirenz plus two NRTIs achieved a viral load under 50 versus only 66% of those taking efavirenz plus boosted lopinavir.

The poorer performance of NRTI-sparing regimens means that nucleosides are likely to remain an essential part of highly active antiretroviral treatment (HAART) regimens for the time being.

References

Duvivier C. Lower rate of virological suppression in naïve patients initiating HAART with NRTI-sparing regimen compared to standard NRTI-containing regimen: results from the Hippocampe – ANRS 121 trial. 10th European AIDS Conference, Dublin, abstract PS1/3, 2005.

Fischl M et al. Randomized, controlled trial of lopinavir/ritonavir + efavirenz vs efavirenz + 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors following a first suppressive 3- or 4-drug regimen in advanced HIV disease. 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Boston, abstract 162, 2005.