Search

Background: The possibility of incorporating generics into combination antiretroviral therapy and breaking apart once-daily single-tablet regimens (STRs), may result in less efficacious medications and/or more complex regimens with the expectation of marked monetary savings. A modeling approach that assesses the merits of such policies in terms of lifelong costs and health outcomes using adherence and effectiveness data from real-world U.S. settings., Methods: A comprehensive computer-based microsimulation model was developed to assess the lifetime health (life expectancy and quality adjusted life-years--QALYs) and economic outcomes in HIV-1 infected patients initiating STRs compared with multiple-table regimens including generic medications where possible (gMTRs). The STRs considered included tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and efavirenz or rilpivirine or elvitegravir/cobicistat. gMTRs substitutions included each counterpart to STRs, including generic lamivudine for emtricitabine and generic versus branded efavirenz., Results: Life expectancy is estimated to be 1.301 years higher (discounted 0.619 QALY gain) in HIV-1 patients initiating a single-tablet regimen in comparison to a generic-based multiple-table regimen. STRs were associated with an average increment of $26,547.43 per patient in medication and $1,824.09 in other medical costs due to longer survival which were partially offset by higher inpatients costs ($12,035.61) with gMTRs treatment. Overall, STRs presented incremental lifetime costs of $16,335.91 compared with gMTRs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $26,383.82 per QALY gained., Conclusions: STRs continue to represent good value for money under contemporary cost-effectiveness thresholds despite substantial price reductions of generic medications in the U. S.

Objectives: To compare efficacy, safety, tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes between two single-tablet regimens, rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (RPV/FTC/TDF) and efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (EFV/FTC/TDF), in HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive adults., Design: This was a phase 3b, 96-week, randomized, open-label, international, noninferiority trial., Methods: A total of 799 participants were randomized (1 : 1) to receive RPV/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF. The primary efficacy endpoint evaluated proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml using the Snapshot algorithm. Additional assessments included CD4 cell counts, genotypic/phenotypic resistance, adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, and quality of life questionnaires., Results: At week 96, trial completion rates were 80.2% (316/394; RPV/FTC/TDF) and 74.0% (290/392; EFV/FTC/TDF). Overall, RPV/FTC/TDF was noninferior to EFV/FTC/TDF [HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml: 77.9 vs. 72.4%, respectively; difference -5.5; 95%CI (-0.6, 11.5); P = 0.076]. RPV/FTC/TDF was significantly more efficacious compared with EFV/FTC/TDF in participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA equal to or less than 100 000 copies/ml (78.8 vs. 71.2%; P = 0.046) and in those with CD4 cell count greater than 200 cells/μl (80.6 vs. 73.0%; P = 0.018). There was no significant between-group difference in the CD4 cell count increase (278 ± 189 vs. 259 ± 191 cells/μl; P = 0.17). Few participants developed resistance after week 48 (1.0% RPV/FTC/TDF; 0.3% EFV/FTC/TDF). Compared with EFV/FTC/TDF, RPV/FTC/TDF was associated with fewer adverse event-related discontinuations (3.0 vs. 11.0%; P<0.001), significantly fewer adverse events due to central nervous system issues and rash, greater improvements in patient-reported symptoms, and significant improvements in the SF-12v2 quality of life questionnaire mental health composite score (P = 0.014)., Conclusion: In treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected participants, 96-week RPV/FTC/TDF treatment demonstrated noninferior efficacy and better tolerability than EFV/FTC/TDF.

This 96-week, randomized, open-label study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of two single-tablet regimens in treatment naïve HIV-1-infected adults: rilpivirine (RPV) + emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) and efavirenz (EFV) + FTC/TDF. Assessments included patient-reported Medication Adherence Self-Report Inventory, SF-12v2 Quality of Life assessment, HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, and HIV Symptom Index Questionnaire through Week 48. Additional evaluations included study drug discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). A total of 786 participants (n=394 RPV/FTC/TDF, n=392 EFV/FTC/TDF) were included. Fewer RPV/FTC/TDF-treated than EFV/FTC/TDF-treated participants discontinued study drug due to TEAEs (2.5% vs. 8.7%), with 41% (14/34) TEAE-related discontinuations in the EFV/FTC/TDF group occurring within the first four weeks of treatment. Treatment adherence and satisfaction remained high through Week 48 and quality of life improved from baseline in both groups. There were no significant between-group differences in virologic success (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL) regardless of adherence (<95% or ≥95%). Significant between-group differences favouring RPV/FTC/TDF were observed for the HIV SIQ symptoms of difficulty falling or staying asleep (p = .022) and diarrhea or loose bowel movements (p = .002). In conclusion, 48-week treatment with RPV/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF was associated with high adherence, high treatment satisfaction, and improved quality of life. TEAE-related discontinuations and patient-reported symptoms indicate that RPV/FTC/TDF may be somewhat better tolerated than EFV/FTC/TDF.

Objectives: Week 96 efficacy and safety of the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) rilpivirine (RPV) was compared to efavirenz (EFV) in subset of 1,096 subjects who received emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) in pooled data from 2 phase 3 studies., Methods: ECHO and THRIVE are double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, active-controlled, non-inferiority phase 3 studies of RPV versus EFV plus 2 NRTIs in antiretroviral-naïve adult subjects. The primary and secondary endpoints were the proportion of subjects with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ mL using an intent-to-treat, time to loss of virologic response (ITT-TLOVR) analysis at weeks 48 and 96, respectively. Safety, tolerability, immunologic response, adherence level, and other measures were also evaluated., Results: At week 48, noninferior efficacy of RPV+FTC/TDF over EFV+FTC/TDF was established, and at week 96 RPV+FTC/TDF remained noninferior (77% overall response rate in both groups). Through week 96, rates of virologic failure were higher in the RPV+FTC/ TDF group, with low and similar rates of virologic failure and resistance mutations occurring during the second year of follow-up. Treatment with RPV+FTC/TDF was associated with a lower rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and grade 2-4 adverse events including dizziness, abnormal dreams/nightmares, rash, and lipid abnormalities., Conclusions: The pooled ECHO and THRIVE studies demonstrated noninferiority of RPV+FTC/TDF in achieving virologic response with safety and tolerability advantages over EFV+FTC/TDF through 96 weeks. Higher rates of virologic failure in the RPV+FTC/TDF group were balanced with higher rates of discontinuations due to adverse events in the EFV+FTC/TDF group.

Background: In the week 48 primary analysis of ECHO and THRIVE, rilpivirine demonstrated noninferior efficacy and more favourable tolerability versus efavirenz in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults. Pooled 96-week results are presented., Methods: Patients (N = 1368) received rilpivirine 25 mg once-daily (q.d.) or efavirenz 600 mg q.d., with two background nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, in two randomized, double-blind, double-dummy Phase III trials., Results: At week 96, response rate (% confirmed viral load <50 copies/ml; intent-to-treat, time-to-loss-of-virologic response) was 78% in both groups. Responses were similar for both treatments by background regimen, sex, race, and in patients with more than 95% adherence (M-MASRI) or baseline viral load 100,000 copies/ml or less. Responses were lower and virologic failure higher for rilpivirine versus efavirenz in patients with 95% or less adherence or baseline viral load more than 100,000 copies/ml. Beyond week 48, the incidence of virologic failure was comparable (3 versus 2%) between treatment groups, rilpivirine resistance-associated mutations were consistent with those observed in year 1, there were few adverse events in both groups and no new safety concerns. Over 96 weeks, discontinuations due to adverse events (4 versus 9%), treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events (17 versus 33%), rash (4 versus 15%), dizziness (8 versus 27%) and abnormal dreams/nightmares (8 versus 13%), and grade 2-4 lipid abnormalities were lower with rilpivirine than efavirenz. Only 2 and 4% of patients in the rilpivirine and efavirenz treatment groups, respectively, reported at least possibly treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events during the second year of treatment., Conclusions: Rilpivirine 25 mg q.d. and efavirenz 600 mg q.d. had comparable responses at week 96. Rilpivirine had more virologic failures but improved tolerability versus efavirenz. The majority of virologic failures occurred in the first 48 weeks.

Background: Pooled analysis of phase 3, double-blind, double-dummy ECHO and THRIVE trials comparing rilpivirine (TMC278) and efavirenz., Methods: Treatment-naive HIV-1-infected adults were randomized 1:1 to rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily, with background tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) (ECHO) or TDF/FTC, zidovudine/lamivudine, or abacavir/lamivudine (THRIVE). The primary endpoint was confirmed response [viral load <50 copies per milliliter; intent-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virologic-response (ITT-TLOVR) algorithm] at week 48. The pooled data set enabled analyses of subgroups and predictors of response/virologic failure., Results: Confirmed responses were 84% (rilpivirine) and 82% (efavirenz). The difference in response rates (95% confidence interval) was 2.0% (-2.0% to 6.0%). The incidence of virologic failure was 9% (rilpivirine) versus 5% (efavirenz). Responses in ITT-TLOVR and ITT-snapshot analyses were consistent. Responses were similar for rilpivirine and efavirenz by background regimen, gender, race and clade. Suboptimal adherence and higher baseline viral load resulted in lower responses, higher virologic failure, and development of resistance in both groups; the effects on virologic failure were more apparent with rilpivirine. CD4 cell count increased over time in both groups. Rilpivirine compared with efavirenz gave smaller incidences of adverse events leading to discontinuation (3% vs. 8%, respectively), treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events (16% vs. 31%), rash (3% vs. 14%), dizziness (8% vs. 26%), abnormal dreams/nightmares (8% vs. 13%), and grade 2-4 lipid abnormalities., Conclusions: At week 48, rilpivirine 25 mg once daily and efavirenz 600 mg once daily had comparable response rates. Rilpivirine had more virologic failures and improved tolerability versus efavirenz.

Background: The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs)., Methods: We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543725., Findings: From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3.5% [95% CI -1.7 to 8.8]; p(non-inferiority)<0.0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2-4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% [54 patients]) than they were with efavirenz (31% [104]; p<0.0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0.0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0.0001)., Interpretation: Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1., Funding: Tibotec., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Forty-eight-week results from a randomized, multicentre, part-blinded, phase IIb clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of 400 and 800 mg etravirine twice daily (phase IIb formulation) and optimized background regimen versus standard-of-care regimen are presented. Both etravirine doses demonstrated sustained virological suppression at 48 weeks and a favourable tolerability profile. Etravirine demonstrated higher efficacy than control, irrespective of the number of detectable nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistance-associated mutations at baseline or active background antiretrovirals.

Background: Episodic use of antiretroviral therapy guided by CD4+ cell counts is inferior to continuous antiretroviral therapy., Objective: To determine whether reinitiating continuous antiretroviral therapy in patients who received episodic treatment reduces excess risk for opportunistic disease or death., Design: Randomized, controlled trial., Setting: Sites in 33 countries., Patients: 5472 HIV-infected individuals with CD4(+) cell counts greater than 0.350 x 10(9) cells/L enrolled from January 2002 to January 2006., Intervention: Episodic or continuous antiretroviral therapy initially, followed by continuous therapy in participants previously assigned to episodic treatment., Measurements: Opportunistic disease or death was the primary outcome., Results: Eighteen months after the recommendation to reinitiate continuous therapy, mean CD4+ cell counts were 0.152 x 10(9) cells/L (95% CI, 0.136 to 0.167 x 10(9) cells/L) less in participants previously assigned to episodic treatment (P < 0.001). The proportion of follow-up time spent with CD4+ cell counts of 0.500 x 10(9) cells/L or more and HIV RNA levels of 400 copies/mL or less was 29% for participants initially assigned to episodic therapy and 66% for those assigned to continuous therapy. Participants who reinitiated continuous therapy experienced rapid suppression of HIV RNA levels (89.7% with HIV RNA levels < or =400 copies/mL after 6 months), but CD4+ cell counts after 6 months remained 0.140 x 10(9) cells/L below baseline. The hazard ratio (episodic versus continuous treatment) for opportunistic disease or death decreased after the recommendation to reinitiate continuous therapy (from 2.5 [CI, 1.8 to 3.5] to 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0]; P = 0.033 for difference). The residual excess risk was attributable to failure to reinitiate therapy by some participants and slow recovery of CD4+ cell counts for those who reinitiated therapy., Limitation: Follow-up was too short to assess the full effect of switching from episodic to continuous antiretroviral therapy., Conclusion: Reinitiating continuous antiretroviral therapy in patients previously assigned to episodic treatment reduced excess risk for opportunistic disease or death, but excess risk remained. Episodic antiretroviral therapy, as used in the SMART study, should be avoided.

Background: The SMART study randomized 5,472 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients with CD4+ cell counts >350 cells/microL to intermittent antiretroviral therapy (ART; the drug conservation [DC] group) versus continuous ART (the viral suppression [VS] group). In the DC group, participants started ART when the CD4+ cell count was <250 cells/microL. Clinical outcomes in participants not receiving ART at entry inform the early use of ART., Methods: Patients who were either ART naive (n=249) or who had not been receiving ART for >or= 6 months (n=228) were analyzed. The following clinical outcomes were assessed: (i) opportunistic disease (OD) or death from any cause (OD/death); (ii) OD (fatal or nonfatal); (iii) serious non-AIDS events (cardiovascular, renal, and hepatic disease plus non-AIDS-defining cancers) and non-OD deaths; and (iv) the composite of outcomes (ii) and (iii)., Results: A total of 477 participants (228 in the DC group and 249 in the VS group) were followed (mean, 18 months). For outcome (iv), 21 and 6 events occurred in the DC (7 in ART-naive participants and 14 in those who had not received ART for >or= 6 months) and VS (2 in ART-naive participants and 4 in those who had not received ART for 6 months) groups, respectively. Hazard ratios for DC vs. VS by outcome category were as follows: outcome (i), 3.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-9.56; p=.02); outcome (ii), 3.26 (95% CI, 1.04-10.25; p=.04); outcome (iii), 7.02 (95% CI, 1.57-31.38; p=.01); and outcome (iv), 4.19 (95% CI, 1.69-10.39; p=.002 )., Conclusions: Initiation of ART at CD4+ cell counts >350 cells/microL compared with <250 cells/microL may reduce both OD and serious non-AIDS events. These findings require validation in a large, randomized clinical trial.

Study Objective: To evaluate the short-term (12 wks) safety and tolerability of a once-daily, fixed-dose abacavir-lamivudine combination versus twice-daily dosing of the separate components, both with background antiretroviral therapy., Design: Phase IIIB, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter study., Setting: One hundred forty-six human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinics., Patients: Six hundred eighty antiretroviral therapy-naïve patients with HIV type 1 RNA greater than 1000 copies/ml at baseline., Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 manner to receive either abacavir 600 mg-lamivudine 300 mg once/day or abacavir 300 mg twice/day and lamivudine 150 mg twice/day. Subjects were stratified based on choice of third or fourth antiretroviral drug (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor [NRTI], NNRTI, or protease inhibitor), assigned before randomization., Measurements and Main Results: The primary end point was occurrence of grades 2-4 adverse events and serious adverse events; abacavir hypersensitivity reactions were considered serious adverse events. Baseline characteristics were similar between the once-daily (455 patients) and twice-daily (225 patients) groups. The rates of all grades 2-4 adverse events were similar: once-daily 33% (150 patients), twice-daily 31% (69). A slightly larger proportion of patients in the twice-daily group experienced drug-related grades 2-4 adverse events: once-daily 10% (47), twice-daily 16% (36). Rates of all serious adverse events (once-daily 11% [49], twice-daily 10% [22]) and drug-related serious adverse events (once-daily 5% [21], twice-daily 8% [17]) were similar. The rate of suspected abacavir hypersensitivity reaction was 5.3% (once-daily 4.4% [20], twice-daily 7.1% [16]), with a higher rate for the NNRTI stratum of the twice-daily group (8.6% [10]) than in any other stratum (once-daily, NNRTI 4.3% [10]; twice-daily, protease inhibitor 5.6% [6]; once-daily, protease inhibitor 4.6% [10])., Conclusion: In the short-term, the rates of adverse events in the once-daily and twice-daily groups appeared to be similar. The rate of suspected abacavir hypersensitivity reaction in the once-daily group was lower than the rate in the twice-daily group.

T-20 is a novel antiretroviral agent that inhibits the fusion of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with target cell membranes. It is delivered by self-administered, twice-daily, subcutaneous injections. The impact of this mode of administration on patients' ability to conduct normal activities of daily living (ADL) and comply with a T-20 treatment regimen was assessed as part of a 48-week, phase 2 trial (T20-205). Patients' opinions on the impact of T-20 on ADL, ease of use of T-20, and choice to continue with T-20 were assessed by two questionnaires completed at baseline and week 48 (or study withdrawal). ADL were measured using a Likert-type scale based on established instruments with questions added to assess HIV-specific issues. Seventy previously treated patients received T-20 in combination with an average of five oral antiretroviral agents. Relative to other HIV/AIDS drugs, T-20 had little impact on ADL, with the majority of patients (54%-96%) agreeing (somewhat or strongly) that subcutaneous injections had not limited ADL. Patients found the injections relatively easy to perform with more than 47% of patients stating that each aspect of the injections (ease of injection, storage, reconstitution, and disposal of sharps) were very easy or easy. If medically indicated, 98% of patients stated that they would choose to continue with T-20. The most common reasons for this were the perceived effectiveness of T-20 and lack of side effects. In conclusion, the need to deliver T-20 via twice-daily subcutaneous injections was not considered an important barrier by HIV-positive patients seeking improvement or stabilization of their condition.

Objective: To compare the effect of treatment decisions guided by phenotypic resistance testing (PRT) or standard of care (SOC) on short-term virological response., Design: A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial conducted in 25 university and private practice centers in the United States., Participants: A total of 272 subjects who failed to achieve or maintain virological suppression (HIV-1-RNA plasma level > 2000 copies/ml) with previous exposure to two or more nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and one protease inhibitor., Interventions: Randomization was to antiretroviral therapy guided by PRT or SOC., Main Outcome Measures: The percentage of subjects with HIV-1-RNA plasma levels less than 400 copies/ml at week 16 (primary); change from baseline in HIV-1-RNA plasma levels and number of "active" (less than fourfold resistance) antiretroviral agents used (secondary)., Results: At week 16, using intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, a greater proportion of subjects had HIV-1-RNA levels less than 400 copies/ml in the PRT than in the SOC arm (P = 0.036, ITT observed; P = 0.079, ITT missing equals failure). An ITT observed analysis showed that subjects in the PRT arm had a significantly greater median reduction in HIV-1-RNA levels from baseline than the SOC arm (P = 0.005 for 400 copies/ml; P = 0.049 for 50 copies/ml assay detection limit). Significantly more subjects in the PRT arm were treated with two or more "active" antiretroviral agents than in the SOC arm (P = 0.003)., Conclusion: Antiretroviral treatment guided prospectively by PRT led to the increased use of "active" antiretroviral agents and was associated with a significantly better virological response.

Background: Genotypic sequencing for drug-resistant strains of HIV can guide the choice of antiretroviral therapy., Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of genotypic resistance testing for patients acquiring drug resistance through failed treatment (secondary resistance) and those infected with resistant virus (primary resistance)., Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis with an HIV simulation model incorporating CD4 cell count and HIV RNA level as predictors of disease progression., Data Sources: Published randomized trials and data from the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, the national AIDS Cost and Services Utilization Survey, the Red Book, and an institutional cost-accounting system., Target Population: HIV-infected patients in the United States with baseline CD4 counts of 0.250 x 10(9) cells/L., Time Horizon: Lifetime., Perspective: Societal., Interventions: Genotypic resistance testing and clinical judgment, compared with clinical judgment alone, in two contexts: after initial treatment failure (secondary resistance testing) and before initiation of antiretroviral therapy (primary resistance testing)., Outcome Measures: Life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and cost-effectiveness in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained., Results of Base-Case Analysis: Secondary resistance testing increased life expectancy by 3 months, at a cost of $17 900 per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness of primary resistance testing was $22 300 per QALY gained with a 20% prevalence of primary resistance but increased to $69 000 per QALY gained with 4% prevalence., Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The cost-effectiveness ratio for secondary resistance testing remained under $25 000 per QALY gained, even when effectiveness and cost of testing and antiretroviral therapy, quality-of-life weights, and discount rate were varied., Conclusions: Genotypic antiretroviral resistance testing following antiretroviral failure is cost-effective. Primary resistance testing also seems to be reasonably cost-effective and will become more so as the prevalence of primary resistance increases.

Background: Combination antiretroviral therapy with a combination of three or more drugs has become the standard of care for patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the United States. We estimated the clinical benefits and cost effectiveness of three-drug antiretroviral regimens., Methods: We developed a mathematical simulation model of HIV disease, using the CD4 cell count and HIV RNA level as predictors of the progression of disease. Outcome measures included life expectancy, life expectancy adjusted for the quality of life, lifetime direct medical costs, and cost effectiveness in dollars per quality-adjusted year of life gained. Clinical data were derived from major clinical trials, including the AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 Study. Data on costs were based on the national AIDS Cost and Services Utilization Survey, with drug costs obtained from the Red Book., Results: For patients similar to those in the AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 Study (mean CD4 cell count, 87 per cubic millimeter), life expectancy adjusted for the quality of life increased from 1.53 to 2.91 years, and per-person lifetime costs increased from $45,460 to $77,300 with three-drug therapy as compared with no therapy. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted year of life gained, as compared with no therapy, was $23,000. On the basis of additional data from other major studies, the cost-effectiveness ratio for three-drug therapy ranged from $13,000 to $23,000 per quality-adjusted year of life gained. The initial CD4 cell count and drug costs were the most important determinants of costs, clinical benefits, and cost effectiveness., Conclusions: Treatment of HIV infection with a combination of three antiretroviral drugs is a cost-effective use of resources.

Background: Although viral rebound follows cessation of suppressive antiretroviral therapy in chronic HIV infection, a viremic clinical syndrome has not been described., Objective: To describe a retroviral syndrome associated with cessation of effective antiretroviral therapy in chronic HIV infection., Design: Case reports., Setting: Outpatient HIV specialty clinics in Seattle, Washington, and Boston, Massachusetts., Patients: Three patients with chronic HIV infection who discontinued suppressive antiretroviral therapy., Measurements: Clinical course, plasma HIV RNA levels, and CD4 cell counts before, during, and after cessation of antiretroviral therapy., Results: Within 6 weeks after stopping antiretroviral therapy, each patient experienced a clinical illness that resembled a primary HIV syndrome. This coincided with a marked increase in HIV RNA level and, in two of three patients, a decrease in CD4 cell count. After antiretroviral therapy was restarted, each patient's symptoms rapidly resolved in association with resuppression of HIV RNA and increase in CD4 cell count or percentage., Conclusion: A retroviral rebound syndrome similar to that seen in primary HIV syndrome can occur in patients with chronic HIV infection after cessation of suppressive antiretroviral therapy.

This randomized open-label trial of human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected persons compared safety and efficacy for 38 patients receiving hydroxyurea/didanosine combination therapy with findings in 42 persons given didanosine monotherapy for 12 weeks, followed by 12 weeks of hydroxyurea/didanosine combination therapy for all patients. Week 12 on-treatment group comparisons showed a mean decrease in virus load between hydroxyurea/didanosine versus didanosine groups of -0.93 versus -0.74 log10 copies/mL (P=.20); a higher percentage of the hydroxyurea/didanosine group below the assay's detection limit (500 copies/mL), 29% versus 7% (P=.017); and median change in CD4 cells for the hydroxyurea/didanosine versus didanosine group of 0 versus 43 cells/mm3 (P=.045), although median change in CD4 percentage was similar (0.9% vs. 1.2%, P=.64). Week 24 virus load reductions and CD4 cell changes were similar in both groups. Intent-to-treat and on-treatment analyses showed similar results. The hydroxyurea/didanosine combination was well tolerated.

Cimetidine, widely used for peptic ulcer disease, blocks type 2 histamine receptors present on immune cells, including T cells, B cells, and monocytes. As an earlier published study showed evidence of increases in CD4 cell counts due to this drug, we conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial of oral cimetidine (400 mg p.o. t.i.d.) in a study involving 182 patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Overall, cimetidine-treated patients had a decline in CD4+ cell counts that was no different from the decline for placebo-treated persons, neither during the first 8 weeks of the trial (mean drop, 7.1% [standard error, 12.1-1.8] vs. 6.7% [standard error, 11.6-1.5]) nor during the subsequent 8 weeks of open-label administration of cimetidine. No differences were evident between the treatment groups in terms of the percentage reactive to p24 antigen at baseline, and p24 antigen concentrations did not change from baseline to the end of week 8. In summary, cimetidine is well tolerated by HIV-infected individuals but alters neither CD4+ cell counts nor at least one quantitative measure of viral load, HIV p24 antigen levels.