Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Infect Dis. 2013 April 1; Volume 13 (Issue 4); 303-312.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70007-0
Bonnet MMB, Bhatt NB, Baudin E, Silva C, Michon C, et al.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2013 April 1; Volume 13 (Issue 4); 303-312.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70007-0
BACKGROUND
In countries with a high incidence of HIV and tuberculosis co-infection, nevirapine and efavirenz are widely used as antiretroviral therapy but both interact with antituberculosis drugs. We aimed to compare efficacy and safety of a nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (started at full dose) with an efavirenz-based regimen in co-infected patients.
METHODS
We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial at three health centres in Maputo, Mozambique. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) with tuberculosis and previously untreated HIV infection (CD4 cell counts <250 cells per μL) and alanine aminotransferase and total bilirubin concentrations of less than five times the upper limit of normal. 4-6 weeks after the start of tuberculosis treatment, we randomly allocated patients (1:1) with central randomisation, block sizes of two to six, and stratified by site and CD4 cell count to nevirapine (200 mg twice daily) or efavirenz (600 mg once daily), plus lamivudine and stavudine. The primary endpoint was virological suppression at 48 weeks (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (intention-to-treat population); death and loss to follow-up were recorded as treatment failure. The non-inferiority margin for the difference of efficacy was 10%. We assessed efficacy in intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations and safety in all patients who received study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00495326.
FINDINGS
Between October, 2007, and March, 2010, we enrolled 285 patients into each group. 242 (85%) patients in the nevirapine group and 233 (82%) patients in the efavirenz group completed follow-up. In the intention-to-treat population, 184 patients (64·6%, 95% CI 58·7-70·1) allocated nevirapine achieved virological suppression at week 48, as did 199 patients (69·8%, 64·1-75·1) allocated efavirenz (one-sided 95% CI of the difference of efficacy 11·7%). In the per-protocol population, 170 (70·0%, 63·8-75·7) of 243 patients allocated nevirapine achieved virological suppression at week 48, as did 194 (78·9%, 73·2-83·8) of 246 patients allocated efavirenz (one-sided 95% CI 15·4%). The median CD4 cell count at randomisation was 89 cells per μL. 15 patients substituted nevirapine with efavirenz and six patients substituted efavirenz with nevirapine. 20 patients allocated nevirapine (7%) had grade 3-4 increase of alanine aminotransferase compared with 17 patients allocated efavirenz (6%). Three patients had severe rash after receipt of nevirapine (1%) but no patients did after receipt of efavirenz. 18 patients in the nevirapine group died, as did 17 patients in the efavirenz group.
INTERPRETATION
Although non-inferiority of the nevirapine-regimen was not shown, nevirapine at full dose could be a safe, acceptable alternative for patients unable to tolerate efavirenz. FUNDING: French Research Agency for HIV/AIDS and hepatitis (ANRS).
In countries with a high incidence of HIV and tuberculosis co-infection, nevirapine and efavirenz are widely used as antiretroviral therapy but both interact with antituberculosis drugs. We aimed to compare efficacy and safety of a nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (started at full dose) with an efavirenz-based regimen in co-infected patients.
METHODS
We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial at three health centres in Maputo, Mozambique. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) with tuberculosis and previously untreated HIV infection (CD4 cell counts <250 cells per μL) and alanine aminotransferase and total bilirubin concentrations of less than five times the upper limit of normal. 4-6 weeks after the start of tuberculosis treatment, we randomly allocated patients (1:1) with central randomisation, block sizes of two to six, and stratified by site and CD4 cell count to nevirapine (200 mg twice daily) or efavirenz (600 mg once daily), plus lamivudine and stavudine. The primary endpoint was virological suppression at 48 weeks (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (intention-to-treat population); death and loss to follow-up were recorded as treatment failure. The non-inferiority margin for the difference of efficacy was 10%. We assessed efficacy in intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations and safety in all patients who received study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00495326.
FINDINGS
Between October, 2007, and March, 2010, we enrolled 285 patients into each group. 242 (85%) patients in the nevirapine group and 233 (82%) patients in the efavirenz group completed follow-up. In the intention-to-treat population, 184 patients (64·6%, 95% CI 58·7-70·1) allocated nevirapine achieved virological suppression at week 48, as did 199 patients (69·8%, 64·1-75·1) allocated efavirenz (one-sided 95% CI of the difference of efficacy 11·7%). In the per-protocol population, 170 (70·0%, 63·8-75·7) of 243 patients allocated nevirapine achieved virological suppression at week 48, as did 194 (78·9%, 73·2-83·8) of 246 patients allocated efavirenz (one-sided 95% CI 15·4%). The median CD4 cell count at randomisation was 89 cells per μL. 15 patients substituted nevirapine with efavirenz and six patients substituted efavirenz with nevirapine. 20 patients allocated nevirapine (7%) had grade 3-4 increase of alanine aminotransferase compared with 17 patients allocated efavirenz (6%). Three patients had severe rash after receipt of nevirapine (1%) but no patients did after receipt of efavirenz. 18 patients in the nevirapine group died, as did 17 patients in the efavirenz group.
INTERPRETATION
Although non-inferiority of the nevirapine-regimen was not shown, nevirapine at full dose could be a safe, acceptable alternative for patients unable to tolerate efavirenz. FUNDING: French Research Agency for HIV/AIDS and hepatitis (ANRS).
Other > Pre-Print
F1000Research. 2019 February 8; Volume 8; 169.; DOI:10.12688/f1000research.17776.1
Baudin E, Bhatt NB, Rouzioux C, Serafini M, Molfino L, et al.
F1000Research. 2019 February 8; Volume 8; 169.; DOI:10.12688/f1000research.17776.1
BACKGROUND
In the CARINEMO ANRS 12146 clinical trial, HIV-tuberculosis co-infected patients in Mozambique were randomized to nevirapine (NVP) or to efavirenz (EFV)-based antiretroviral therapy to compare these two non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) in treatment naïve patients.
METHODS
In this sub study, we explored the relationship of NNRTI concentrations with virological escape and the possible emergence of resistance mutations at week 48. The virological escape was defined as an HIV-RNA above 400 copies/m at week 48.
RESULTS
Among the 570 randomized patients, 470 (82%) had an HIV-RNA result at week 48; 54 (12.1%) patients had a viral escape and 35 patients had at least one major resistance mutation detected. Low drug concentration at weeks 12 and 24 (below the 10th percentile) were independently associated with virologic escape at week 48 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=2.9; 95% CI: 1.1 -7.2; p=0.0312 and aOR=4.2; 95% CI: 1.8-9.8; p=0.0019, respectively), and independently associated with an increased risk of emergence of resistance mutation (aOR=4.5; 95% CI: 1.8-14.6; p=0.009 at week 12; aOR=5.1; 95% CI: 1.8-14.6 at week 24). Receiver operating characteristic curves analyses indicated a better predictability of the mid-dose concentration and of the HIV-1 RNA values on resistance mutations in contrast to virological escape.
CONCLUSIONS
Very low drug plasma concentrations early after treatment initiation (week 12) were predictive factors of virological escape and the emergence of resistance mutations at week 48, and early monitoring of drug intake may prevent the occurrence of late virological escape and the selection of vial resistance mutations.
In the CARINEMO ANRS 12146 clinical trial, HIV-tuberculosis co-infected patients in Mozambique were randomized to nevirapine (NVP) or to efavirenz (EFV)-based antiretroviral therapy to compare these two non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) in treatment naïve patients.
METHODS
In this sub study, we explored the relationship of NNRTI concentrations with virological escape and the possible emergence of resistance mutations at week 48. The virological escape was defined as an HIV-RNA above 400 copies/m at week 48.
RESULTS
Among the 570 randomized patients, 470 (82%) had an HIV-RNA result at week 48; 54 (12.1%) patients had a viral escape and 35 patients had at least one major resistance mutation detected. Low drug concentration at weeks 12 and 24 (below the 10th percentile) were independently associated with virologic escape at week 48 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=2.9; 95% CI: 1.1 -7.2; p=0.0312 and aOR=4.2; 95% CI: 1.8-9.8; p=0.0019, respectively), and independently associated with an increased risk of emergence of resistance mutation (aOR=4.5; 95% CI: 1.8-14.6; p=0.009 at week 12; aOR=5.1; 95% CI: 1.8-14.6 at week 24). Receiver operating characteristic curves analyses indicated a better predictability of the mid-dose concentration and of the HIV-1 RNA values on resistance mutations in contrast to virological escape.
CONCLUSIONS
Very low drug plasma concentrations early after treatment initiation (week 12) were predictive factors of virological escape and the emergence of resistance mutations at week 48, and early monitoring of drug intake may prevent the occurrence of late virological escape and the selection of vial resistance mutations.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014 March 24; Volume 58 (Issue 6); 3182-90.; DOI:10.1128/AAC.02379-13
Bhatt NB, Barau C, Amin A, Baudin E, Meggi B, et al.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014 March 24; Volume 58 (Issue 6); 3182-90.; DOI:10.1128/AAC.02379-13
This is a substudy of the Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida et les Hépatites Virales (ANRS) Comparison of Nevirapine and Efavirenz for the Treatment of HIV-TB Co-infected Patients (ANRS 12146-CARINEMO) trial, which assessed the pharmacokinetics of rifampin or isoniazid with or without the coadministration of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based HIV antiretroviral therapy in HIV-tuberculosis-coinfected patients in Mozambique. Thirty-eight patients on antituberculosis therapy based on rifampin and isoniazid participated in the substudy (57.9% males; median age, 33 years; median weight, 51.9 kg; median CD4(+) T cell count, 104 cells/μl; median HIV-1 RNA load, 5.5 log copies/ml). The daily doses of rifampin and isoniazid were 10 and 5 mg/kg of body weight, respectively. Twenty-one patients received 200 mg of nevirapine twice a day (b.i.d.), and 17 patients received 600 mg of efavirenz once a day (q.d.) in combination with lamivudine and stavudine from day 1 until the end of the study. Blood samples were collected at regular time-dosing intervals after morning administration of a fixed-dose combination of rifampin and isoniazid. When rifampin was administered alone, the median maximum concentration of drug in serum (Cmax) and the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) at steady state were 6.59 mg/liter (range, 2.70 to 14.07 mg/liter) and 27.69 mg · h/liter (range, 11.41 to 109.75 mg · h/liter), respectively. Concentrations remained unchanged when rifampin was coadministered with nevirapine or efavirenz. When isoniazid was administered alone, the median isoniazid Cmax and AUC at steady state were 5.08 mg/liter (range, 1.26 to 11.51 mg/liter) and 20.92 mg · h/liter (range, 7.73 to 56.95 mg · h/liter), respectively. Concentrations remained unchanged when isoniazid was coadministered with nevirapine; however, a 29% decrease in the isoniazid AUC was observed when isoniazid was combined with efavirenz. The pharmacokinetic parameters of rifampin and isoniazid when coadministered with nevirapine or efavirenz were not altered to a clinically significant extent in these severely immunosuppressed HIV-infected patients. Patients experienced favorable clinical outcomes. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00495326.).
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
PLOS Med. 2016 March 1; Volume 13 (Issue 3); DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001967
Sissoko D, Laouenan C, Folkesson E, M’Lebing A, Beavogui A, et al.
PLOS Med. 2016 March 1; Volume 13 (Issue 3); DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001967
Ebola virus disease (EVD) is a highly lethal condition for which no specific treatment has proven efficacy. In September 2014, while the Ebola outbreak was at its peak, the World Health Organization released a short list of drugs suitable for EVD research. Favipiravir, an antiviral developed for the treatment of severe influenza, was one of these. In late 2014, the conditions for starting a randomized Ebola trial were not fulfilled for two reasons. One was the perception that, given the high number of patients presenting simultaneously and the very high mortality rate of the disease, it was ethically unacceptable to allocate patients from within the same family or village to receive or not receive an experimental drug, using a randomization process impossible to understand by very sick patients. The other was that, in the context of rumors and distrust of Ebola treatment centers, using a randomized design at the outset might lead even more patients to refuse to seek care. Therefore, we chose to conduct a multicenter non-randomized trial, in which all patients would receive favipiravir along with standardized care. The objectives of the trial were to test the feasibility and acceptability of an emergency trial in the context of a large Ebola outbreak, and to collect data on the safety and effectiveness of favipiravir in reducing mortality and viral load in patients with EVD. The trial was not aimed at directly informing future guidelines on Ebola treatment but at quickly gathering standardized preliminary data to optimize the design of future studies.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 February 23 (Issue 2)
Nguyen TN, Guedj J, Anglaret X, Laouenan C, Madelain V, et al.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 February 23 (Issue 2)
In 2014-2015, we assessed favipiravir tolerance and efficacy in patients with Ebola virus (EBOV) disease (EVD) in Guinea (JIKI trial). Because the drug had never been used before for this indication and that high concentrations of the drugs were needed to achieve antiviral efficacy against EBOV, a pharmacokinetic model had been used to propose relevant dosing regimen. Here we report the favipiravir plasma concentrations that were achieved in participants in the JIKI trial and put them in perspective with the model-based targeted concentrations.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014 September 18; Volume 70 (Issue 1); 225-32.; DOI:10.1093/jac/dku348
Bhatt NB, Baudin E, Meggi B, da Silva C, Barrail-Tran A, et al.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014 September 18; Volume 70 (Issue 1); 225-32.; DOI:10.1093/jac/dku348
OBJECTIVES
We describe nevirapine and efavirenz exposure on and off tuberculosis treatment and consequences for virological efficacy and tolerance in patients included in the ANRS 12146/12214-CARINEMO trial.
METHODS
Participants were randomly selected to receive either nevirapine at 200 mg twice daily (n = 256) or efavirenz at 600 mg daily (n = 270), both combined with two nucleoside analogues. Blood samples were drawn 12 h after nevirapine or efavirenz administration, while on tuberculosis treatment and after tuberculosis treatment discontinuation. In 62 participants, samples taken 12 h after drug administration were drawn weekly for the first month of ART. Sixteen participants participated in an extensive pharmacokinetic study of nevirapine. Concentrations were compared with the therapeutic ranges of 3000-8000 ng/mL for nevirapine and 1000-4000 ng/mL for efavirenz.
RESULTS
Nevirapine concentrations at the end of the first week of treatment (on antituberculosis drugs) did not differ from concentrations off tuberculosis treatment, but declined thereafter. Concentrations at steady-state were 4111 ng/mL at week 12 versus 6095 ng/mL at week 48 (P < 0.0001). Nevirapine concentrations <3000 ng/mL were found to be a risk factor for virological failure. Efavirenz concentrations were higher on than off tuberculosis treatment (2700 versus 2450 ng/mL, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
The omission of the 2 week lead-in dose of nevirapine prevented low concentrations at treatment initiation but did not prevent the risk of virological failure. Results support the WHO recommendation to use efavirenz at 600 mg daily in patients on rifampicin-based antituberculosis therapy.
We describe nevirapine and efavirenz exposure on and off tuberculosis treatment and consequences for virological efficacy and tolerance in patients included in the ANRS 12146/12214-CARINEMO trial.
METHODS
Participants were randomly selected to receive either nevirapine at 200 mg twice daily (n = 256) or efavirenz at 600 mg daily (n = 270), both combined with two nucleoside analogues. Blood samples were drawn 12 h after nevirapine or efavirenz administration, while on tuberculosis treatment and after tuberculosis treatment discontinuation. In 62 participants, samples taken 12 h after drug administration were drawn weekly for the first month of ART. Sixteen participants participated in an extensive pharmacokinetic study of nevirapine. Concentrations were compared with the therapeutic ranges of 3000-8000 ng/mL for nevirapine and 1000-4000 ng/mL for efavirenz.
RESULTS
Nevirapine concentrations at the end of the first week of treatment (on antituberculosis drugs) did not differ from concentrations off tuberculosis treatment, but declined thereafter. Concentrations at steady-state were 4111 ng/mL at week 12 versus 6095 ng/mL at week 48 (P < 0.0001). Nevirapine concentrations <3000 ng/mL were found to be a risk factor for virological failure. Efavirenz concentrations were higher on than off tuberculosis treatment (2700 versus 2450 ng/mL, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
The omission of the 2 week lead-in dose of nevirapine prevented low concentrations at treatment initiation but did not prevent the risk of virological failure. Results support the WHO recommendation to use efavirenz at 600 mg daily in patients on rifampicin-based antituberculosis therapy.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
PLOS One. 2014 March 7; Volume 9 (Issue 3); e90350.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0090350
Borand L, Madec Y, Laureillard D, Chou M, Marcy O, et al.
PLOS One. 2014 March 7; Volume 9 (Issue 3); e90350.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0090350
OBJECTIVE
To assess efavirenz plasma concentrations and their association with treatment efficacy and tolerance of efavirenz 600 mg daily in HIV-tuberculosis co-infected patients.
METHODS
HIV-infected adults with CD4+ T cell count ≤ 200/mm(3) received standard 6-month tuberculosis treatment and antiretroviral therapy including a daily-dose of 600 mg of efavirenz, irrespective of their body weight. Mid-dose blood samples were drawn both on tuberculosis treatment (week +2 and week +6 after antiretroviral therapy initiation, and week 22 of follow-up) and off tuberculosis treatment (week 50 of follow-up). Considered therapeutic range was 1,000 to 4,000 ng/mL. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the association between efavirenz concentration below 1,000 ng/mL and virological failure. Linear regression was used to test the association between efavirenz exposure and CD4+ T cell gain. Severe side effects potentially related to efavirenz were described and their association with efavirenz exposure was tested by multivariate analysis.
RESULTS
Efavirenz plasma concentrations were available in 540 patients. Median [interquartile range] efavirenz concentrations were 2,674 ng/mL [1,690-4,533], 2,667 ng/mL [1,753-4,494] and 2,799 ng/mL [1,804-4,744] at week +2, week +6, week 22, respectively, and 2,766 ng/mL [1,941-3,976] at week 50. Efavirenz concentrations were lower at week 50 (off rifampicin) compared to week 22 (on rifampicin) (p<0.001). Late attendance to study visit and low hemoglobinemia were the only factors associated with an increased risk of efavirenz concentration below 1,000 ng/mL. Efavirenz concentration below 1,000 ng/mL was not associated with treatment failure. Efavirenz concentration above 4,000 ng/mL was associated with higher risk of central nervous system side effects (p<0.001) and of hepatotoxicity (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
Body weight and tuberculosis treatment were not associated with low efavirenz concentrations or treatment failure, supporting the 600 mg daily-dose of efavirenz in HIV-tuberculosis co-infected patients. High efavirenz concentrations were related to a higher risk of central nervous system side effects and hepatotoxicity.
To assess efavirenz plasma concentrations and their association with treatment efficacy and tolerance of efavirenz 600 mg daily in HIV-tuberculosis co-infected patients.
METHODS
HIV-infected adults with CD4+ T cell count ≤ 200/mm(3) received standard 6-month tuberculosis treatment and antiretroviral therapy including a daily-dose of 600 mg of efavirenz, irrespective of their body weight. Mid-dose blood samples were drawn both on tuberculosis treatment (week +2 and week +6 after antiretroviral therapy initiation, and week 22 of follow-up) and off tuberculosis treatment (week 50 of follow-up). Considered therapeutic range was 1,000 to 4,000 ng/mL. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the association between efavirenz concentration below 1,000 ng/mL and virological failure. Linear regression was used to test the association between efavirenz exposure and CD4+ T cell gain. Severe side effects potentially related to efavirenz were described and their association with efavirenz exposure was tested by multivariate analysis.
RESULTS
Efavirenz plasma concentrations were available in 540 patients. Median [interquartile range] efavirenz concentrations were 2,674 ng/mL [1,690-4,533], 2,667 ng/mL [1,753-4,494] and 2,799 ng/mL [1,804-4,744] at week +2, week +6, week 22, respectively, and 2,766 ng/mL [1,941-3,976] at week 50. Efavirenz concentrations were lower at week 50 (off rifampicin) compared to week 22 (on rifampicin) (p<0.001). Late attendance to study visit and low hemoglobinemia were the only factors associated with an increased risk of efavirenz concentration below 1,000 ng/mL. Efavirenz concentration below 1,000 ng/mL was not associated with treatment failure. Efavirenz concentration above 4,000 ng/mL was associated with higher risk of central nervous system side effects (p<0.001) and of hepatotoxicity (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
Body weight and tuberculosis treatment were not associated with low efavirenz concentrations or treatment failure, supporting the 600 mg daily-dose of efavirenz in HIV-tuberculosis co-infected patients. High efavirenz concentrations were related to a higher risk of central nervous system side effects and hepatotoxicity.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
AIDS. 2007 November 12; Volume 21 (Issue 17); DOI:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32828cc8b7
Ferradini LLF, Laureillard D, Prak N, Ngeth C, Fernandez MAL, et al.
AIDS. 2007 November 12; Volume 21 (Issue 17); DOI:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32828cc8b7
OBJECTIVES: African and Asian cohort studies have demonstrated the feasibility and efficacy of HAART in resource-poor settings. The long-term virological outcome and clinico-immunological criteria of success remain important questions. We report the outcomes at 24 months of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in patients treated in a Médecins Sans Frontières/Ministry of Health programme in Cambodia. METHODS: Adults who started HAART 24 +/- 2 months ago were included. Plasma HIV-RNA levels were assessed by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Factors associated with virological failure were analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 416 patients, 59.2% were men; the median age was 33.6 years. At baseline, 95.2% were ART naive, 48.9% were at WHO stage IV, and 41.6% had a body mass index less than 18 kg/m. The median CD4 cell count was 11 cells/microl. A stavudine-lamivudine-efavirenz-containing regimen was initiated predominantly (81.0%). At follow-up (median 23.8 months), 350 (84.1%) were still on HAART, 53 (12.7%) had died, six (1.4%) were transferred, and seven (1.7%) were lost to follow-up. Estimates of survival were 85.5% at 24 months. Of 346 tested patients, 259 (74.1%) had CD4 cell counts greater than 200 cells/microl and 306 (88.4%) had viral loads of less than 400 copies/ml. Factors associated with virological failure at 24 months were non-antiretroviral naive, an insufficient CD4 cell gain of less than 350 cells/microl or a low trough plasma ART concentration. In an intention-to-treat analysis, 73.6% of patients were successfully treated. CONCLUSION: Positive results after 2 years of advanced HIV further demonstrate the efficacy of HAART in the medium term in resource-limited settings.
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 May 22; Volume 84 (Issue 8); 1641-1658.; DOI:10.1111/bcp.13600
Atwine D, Bonnet MMB, Taburet AM
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 May 22; Volume 84 (Issue 8); 1641-1658.; DOI:10.1111/bcp.13600
AIMS
Efavirenz (EFV) and rifampicin-isoniazid (RH) are cornerstone drugs in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-tuberculosis (TB) coinfection treatment but with complex drug interactions, efficacy and safety challenges. We reviewed recent data on EFV and RH interaction in TB/HIV high-burden countries.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies conducted in the high TB/HIV-burden countries between 1990 and 2016 on EFV pharmacokinetics during RH coadministration in coinfected patients. Two reviewers conducted article screening and data collection.
RESULTS
Of 119 records retrieved, 22 were included (two conducted in children), reporting either EFV mid-dose or pre-dose concentrations. In 19 studies, median or mean concentrations of RH range between 1000 and 4000 ng ml-1, the so-called therapeutic range. The proportion of patients with subtherapeutic concentration of RH ranged between 3.1 and 72.2%, in 12 studies including one conducted in children. The proportion of patients with supratherapeutic concentration ranged from 19.6 to 48.0% in six adult studies and one child study. Five of eight studies reported virological suppression >80%. The association between any grade hepatic and central nervous system adverse effects with EFV/RH interaction was demonstrated in two and three studies, respectively. The frequency of the CYP2B6 516G > T polymorphism ranged from 10 to 28% and was associated with higher plasma EFV concentrations, irrespective of ethnicity.
CONCLUSIONS
Anti-TB drug coadministration minimally affect the EFV exposure, efficacy and safety among TB-HIV coinfected African and Asian patients. This supports the current 600 mg EFV dosing when coadministered with anti-TB drugs.
Efavirenz (EFV) and rifampicin-isoniazid (RH) are cornerstone drugs in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-tuberculosis (TB) coinfection treatment but with complex drug interactions, efficacy and safety challenges. We reviewed recent data on EFV and RH interaction in TB/HIV high-burden countries.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies conducted in the high TB/HIV-burden countries between 1990 and 2016 on EFV pharmacokinetics during RH coadministration in coinfected patients. Two reviewers conducted article screening and data collection.
RESULTS
Of 119 records retrieved, 22 were included (two conducted in children), reporting either EFV mid-dose or pre-dose concentrations. In 19 studies, median or mean concentrations of RH range between 1000 and 4000 ng ml-1, the so-called therapeutic range. The proportion of patients with subtherapeutic concentration of RH ranged between 3.1 and 72.2%, in 12 studies including one conducted in children. The proportion of patients with supratherapeutic concentration ranged from 19.6 to 48.0% in six adult studies and one child study. Five of eight studies reported virological suppression >80%. The association between any grade hepatic and central nervous system adverse effects with EFV/RH interaction was demonstrated in two and three studies, respectively. The frequency of the CYP2B6 516G > T polymorphism ranged from 10 to 28% and was associated with higher plasma EFV concentrations, irrespective of ethnicity.
CONCLUSIONS
Anti-TB drug coadministration minimally affect the EFV exposure, efficacy and safety among TB-HIV coinfected African and Asian patients. This supports the current 600 mg EFV dosing when coadministered with anti-TB drugs.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
BMC Pediatr. 2011 July 26; Volume 11 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/1471-2431-11-67
Ahoua L, Guenther G, Rouzioux C, Pinoges LLP, Anguzu P, et al.
BMC Pediatr. 2011 July 26; Volume 11 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/1471-2431-11-67
Children living with HIV continue to be in urgent need of combined antiretroviral therapy (ART). Strategies to scale up and improve pediatric HIV care in resource-poor regions, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, require further research from these settings. We describe treatment outcomes in children treated in rural Uganda after 1 and 2 years of ART start.