|
One combination of AIDS drugs appears
better for starting treatment
Further research may uncover ways
to develop more effective, less toxic drug regimens
BOSTON - December 10, 2003 - One specific combination of
anti-HIV drugs appears to be more effective for initiating therapy
than other drug combinations tested in a large multi-institutional
study. In two reports appearing in the Dec. 11 New England Journal
of Medicine, teams led by researchers from Massachusetts General
Hospital (MGH), Stanford
University Medical Center, and Harvard
School of Public Health report that, while all of the combinations
studied were effective in keeping the virus under control, patients
who started therapy with a combination of zidovudine (ZDV, also
known as AZT), lamivudine (3TC) and efavirenz (EFV) were successfully
treated for a longer period of time.
"We've been fortunate to have a variety of choices for antiretroviral
therapy," says Gregory Robbins, MD, MPH, of the MGH. "But
many had previously believed that how the drugs were combined did
not make much difference. This study shows that some combinations
are more powerful than others and that how they are sequenced makes
a difference." Preliminary results of this study were presented
at the 2002 International AIDS Conference in Barcelona and have
been incorporated into current HIV/AIDS treatment guidelines issued
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Combination drug therapy - also called highly active antiretroviral
therapy (HAART) - made a huge difference in the treatment of HIV
infection during the 1990s, changing HIV/AIDS into an illness that
people could live with for many years. Combinations of three antiviral
drugs could keep the virus in check for a while, and when one treatment
regimen failed to suppress the virus or became too toxic, switching
to a different combination often renewed effective viral control.
The current studies are the largest and most complex examination
of the outcomes of different treatment strategies.
When triple combination therapy was first introduced, physicians
combined two drugs called nucleoside reverse transcriptase (RT)
inhibitors with another drug called a protease inhibitor. In recent
years, a class of drugs called non-nucleoside RT inhibitors became
available and is often used to replace the protease inhibitor in
combination therapy.
One portion of the study, led by Robbins, compared four three-drug
regimens to determine whether the order in which they were used
affected how long they were successful. At 79 sites in the U.S.
and Italy, 620 patients who had not previously been treated were
enrolled and followed for more than two years. For nucleoside RT
inhibitors, study participants received either ZVD and 3TC or they
received stavudine (d4T) and didanosine (ddI). The alternatives
for the third drug were either the non-nucleoside RT inhibitor EFV
or the protease inhibitor nelfinavir (NFV).
Results of the three-drug comparison showed that the ZDV/3TC/EFV
regimen appeared to be the best initial combination. Participants
starting with that combination were most successful in postponing
failure of the first and in some instances the second drug regimen.
Even those who had higher viral levels when they entered the study
showed similarly positive results from the ZDV/3TC/EFV combination.
The second part of the study - led by Robert Shafer, MD, assistant
professor of medicine at Stanford - asked whether using four drugs
in combination would be better than two consecutive three-drug regimens.
Although four drugs could potentially increase effectiveness, the
combination might also increase toxicity and be more expensive and
more difficult to follow than a three-drug regimen. The team evaluated
a regimen using ddI, d4T, EFV and NFV and one using ZDV, 3TC, EFV
and NFV in 360 previously untreated patients and compared results
with the sequential three-drug regimens previously mentioned. Since
an initial four-drug regimen exposed participants to all three drug
classes, there was no second regimen for those who failed the first.
After an average of 28 months, the four-drug regimens proved to
be no more effective than any of the sequential three-drug regimens.
However, an intriguing finding came to light. "When we looked
at the time it took for the first regimen to fail, using four drugs
delayed failure longer, except when compared with ZDV, 3TC and EFV,
which worked as well as the four-drug combinations" said Shafer.
"And that particular triple-drug regimen also led to faster
viral load suppression than did using four drugs."
In both studies, participants who began treatment with ddI and d4T
had more drug toxicity problems, such as nerve damage and pancreatic
inflammation. Shafer said that this is the first time the toxic
effects of these drugs have been followed in a large study of previously
untreated patients, and the result led the researchers to recommend
that treatment of HIV infection should not begin with these two
drugs, a recommendation that has been incorporated into federal
treatment guidelines.
The researchers also note that their results can only be applied
to the specific drug regimens studied and that several other combinations
may be in use today. However, they hope to investigate the biological
mechanism behind their current findings in order to improve current
treatment plans and develop new options that will be even more successful.
"We are exploring possibilities that may explain the apparent
greater potency of one combination," says Robbins, "and
we hope to find new ways to minimize toxicity and side effects.
As patients are living longer, we need longer-term trials that can
help us determine which regimens are more effective and better tolerated."
Robbins is an instructor in Medicine at Harvard Medical School (HMS)
and on the staff of the Partners AIDS Research Center.
The overall study was carried out through the AIDS
Clinical Trial Group, funded by the Division of Acquired Immuneodeficiency
Syndrome of the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID). Robbins
and Shafer were co-chairs of the study; the co-senior authors were
Martin Hirsch, MD, of the MGH and HMS, and Thomas Merigan, MD, of
Stanford; and the lead statisticians were Victor De Gruttola, ScD,
and Laura Smeaton, MS, of Harvard School of Public Health.
Additional co-authors of the three-drug comparison are Sally Snyder,
of Social & Scientific Systems; Carla Pettinelli, MD, PhD, NIAID;
Michael Dubé, MD, Indiana University; Margaret Fischl, MD,
University of Miami; Richard Pollard, MD, University of California
at Davis; Robert Delapenha, MD, Howard University; Linda Gedeon,
Frontier Science & Technology Research Foundation; Charles van
der Horst, MD, University of North Carolina; Robert Murphy, MD,
Northwestern University; Mark Becker, PharmD, Agouron Pharmaceuticals,
a division of Pfizer; Richard D'Aquila, MD, Vanderbilt University;
and Stefano Vella, MD, Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Rome.
Additional authors of the four-drug study were Victoria Johnson,
MD, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Gene Morse, PharmD, State
University of New York at Buffalo; Mostafa Nokta, MD, University
of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston; Ana Martinez, RPh, NIAID; Barbara
M. Gripshover, MD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; Pamposh
Kaul, MD, University of Cincinnati; Richard Haubrich, MD, University
of California-San Diego; Mary Swingle, RN, Bristol-Myers Squibb;
and Debra McCarty, BS, GlaxoSmithKline.
Massachusetts General Hospital, established in 1811, is the original
and largest teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. The MGH
conducts the largest hospital-based research program in the United
States, with an annual research budget of more than $350 million
and major research centers in AIDS, cardiovascular research, cancer,
cutaneous biology, medical imaging, neurodegenerative disorders,
transplantation biology and photomedicine. In 1994, the MGH joined
with Brigham and Women's Hospital to form Partners HealthCare System,
an integrated health care delivery system comprising the two academic
medical centers, specialty and community hospitals, a network of
physician groups and nonacute and home health services.
Media Contacts: Sue
McGreevey, MGH Public Affairs
Mitzi Baker, Stanford
Medical Public Affairs
Physician Referral Service: 1-800-388-4644
Information about Clinical Trials
|
|
 |