Search

Objective: To assess the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) among patients in rural Lesotho who are taking first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) containing either zidovudine or tenofovir disoproxil.Methods: Cross-sectional survey in 10 facilities in Lesotho among adult (≥16 years) patients on non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based first-line ART for ≥6 months. MetS was defined according to the International Diabetes Federation criteria.Results: Among 1166 patients (65.8% female), 22.2% (95% CI: 19.3-25.3) of women and 6.3% (4.1-9.1) of men met the IDF definition of MetS (P < 0.001). In both sexes, there was no significant difference in MetS prevalence between NNRTIs. However, in women taking zidovudine as nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI), MetS prevalence was 27.9%, vs. 18.8% in those taking tenofovir. In the multivariate logistic regression allowing for socio-demographic and clinical covariates, ART containing zidovudine was associated with MetS in women (aOR 2.17 (1.46-3.22), P < 0.001) but not in men.Conclusion: In this study, taking ART containing zidovudine instead of tenofovir disoproxil was an independent predictor of MetS in women but not in men. This finding endorses WHO's recommendation of tenofovir as preferred NRTI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare virologic success between adult patients on tenofovir (TDF) and zidovudine (AZT)-containing first-line antiretroviral (ART) regimens in 10 rural clinics in Lesotho, Southern Africa., Methods: Multicentre cross-sectional study, patients ≥16 years, on first-line ART ≥6 months, receiving AZT/lamivudine (3TC) or TDF/3TC combined with efavirenz (EFV) or nevirapine (NVP). Patient characteristics and clinical/therapeutic history were collected on the day of blood draw for viral load (VL). Analysis was stratified for non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (EFV or NVP). A logistic regression model weighted for patients' baseline characteristics was used to assess the likelihood of virologic success (<80 copies/ml) in patients with TDF- as compared to AZT-backbones., Results: In total 1539 patients were included in the analysis. Most were clinically and immunologically stable (clinical failure: 2.7% (AZT) and 2.8% (TDF); immunological failure: 4.6% (AZT) and 4.8% (TDF)). In EFV-based regimens (n = 1162), TDF was significantly associated with higher rates of virologic suppression than AZT (93.8% vs. 88.1%; weighted odds ratio: 2.15 (95% CI: 1.29-3.58; P = 0.003)). In NVP-based regimens, a similar trend was observed, but not significant (89.4% vs. 86.7%; 1.99 (0.83-4.75, P = 0.121))., Conclusion: These findings support the WHO recommendation to use TDF/3TC/EFV as first-line regimen. They do, however, not support the recommendation that patients who are clinically stable on AZT should continue on this first-line regimen., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)