• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
AIDS. Author manuscript; available in PMC Jun 1, 2010.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2739977
NIHMSID: NIHMS121756

Metabolic Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of Nucleoside, Nonnucleoside and Protease Inhibitor-Sparing Regimens for Initial HIV Treatment

Abstract

Background

The metabolic effects of initial therapy for HIV-1 infection are important determinants of regimen selection.

Methods

Open-label study in 753 subjects randomized equally to: efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir(r) plus two NRTI versus the NRTI-sparing regimen of lopinavir/r plus efavirenz. Zidovudine, stavudine, or tenofovir with lamivudine was selected prior to randomization. Metabolic outcomes through 96-weeks were lipoatrophy, defined as ≥20% loss of extremity fat, and fasting serum lipids.

Results

Lipoatrophy by DEXA at week 96 occurred in 32% (95% confidence interval 25%, 39%) of subjects in the efavirenz plus two NRTI arm, 17% (12%,24%) in the lopinavir/r plus two NRTI arm, and 9% (5,14%) in the NRTI-sparing arm (p≤0.023 for all comparisons). Varying the definition of lipoatrophy (≥10% to ≥40% fat loss) and correction for baseline risk factors did not affect the significant difference in lipoatrophy between the NRTI-containing regimens. Lipoatrophy was most frequent with stavudine-containing regimens and least frequent with tenofovir-containing regimens (p<0.001), which were not significantly different from the NRTI-sparing regimen. Total cholesterol increases at week 96 were greatest in the NRTI-sparing arm (median +57 mg/dL) compared to the other two arms (+32-33 mg/dL, p<.001). Use of lipid lowering agents was more common (25% versus 11-13%) in the NRTI-sparing arm.

Conclusion

Lipoatrophy was more frequent with efavirenz than lopinavir/r when combined with stavudine or zidovudine, and less frequent when either drug was combined with tenofovir. Lipoatrophy was least frequent with the NRTI-sparing regimen, but this benefit was offset by greater cholesterol elevations and the need for lipid lowering agents.

Keywords: antiretroviral therapy, lipoatrophy, metabolic complication, treatment naive, PI, NNRTI

Introduction

Metabolic alterations, including redistribution of body fat and elevations in serum lipids, are among the most important complications of antiretroviral therapy [1-5]. Loss of limb fat (lipoatrophy) is disfiguring, and lipid elevations may increase risk of cardiovascular disease. It is generally accepted that protease inhibitor-containing regimens, especially when ritonavir-enhanced, are more likely to cause lipid elevations than efavirenz-based regimens [6, 7]. Lipoatrophy has been most closely linked to regimens containing stavudine but the role of other nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), including zidovudine and tenofovir, have not been compared in well-powered studies of initial therapy [8-10]. Moreover, the potential value of NRTI-sparing regimens in preventing lipoatrophy has not been defined.

Thus, despite the importance of metabolic complications in the management of HIV disease, their relative frequencies are incompletely studied and NRTI-sparing regimens, specifically designed to minimize their risk, have not been evaluated.

ACTG A5142 was a randomized study designed to rigorously compare both virologic and metabolic outcomes following initial therapy of HIV-1 infection with efavirenz plus two NRTI, lopinavir/r plus two NRTI, or lopinavir/r plus efavirenz (NRTI-sparing regimen). The metabolic outcomes studied were changes in body fat, including trunk fat and the occurrence of lipoatrophy, and changes in fasting total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and non-HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides.

Methods

Study Population

HIV-1-infected, antiretroviral-naïve male and non-pregnant female subjects of at least 13 years of age with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels ≥ 2,000 copies/mL, acceptable laboratory values and any CD4 cell count were enrolled [11]. The study protocol was approved by an institutional review board or ethics committee at each participating site. All subjects provided written informed consent.

Study Design

ACTG A5142 was a phase-III, randomized, multi-center, open-label trial. Subjects were randomized equally to one of three treatment regimens: lopinavir/r plus efavirenz (lopinavir-efavirenz arm) or two NRTI plus either lopinavir/r (lopinavir arm) or efavirenz (efavirenz arm) [11]. Prior to randomization, investigators selected zidovudine, stavudine extended release (investigational formulation, 100 mg once daily or 75 mg if the subjects weight was < 60 kg) or tenofovir to be given with lamivudine if the subject was randomized to an arm that included NRTI. The investigational stavudine formulation yielded concentrations similar to current marketed products [12]. Randomization was stratified based on screening plasma HIV-1 RNA, chronic hepatitis (either B or C) infection, and choice of NRTI.

The study followed subjects for 96 weeks after the last subject was enrolled. Follow-up evaluations included safety laboratories, plasma HIV-1 RNA, and CD4 cell count every 4-8 weeks. Changes in randomized regimen or NRTI were allowed for toxicity, but were considered endpoints in the composite efficacy analysis. Body composition was measured by whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) at entry, and again at 48 and 96 weeks using standard methods [10, 13]. Scans were read centrally (Tufts University) by reviewers who were masked to treatment assignment. Clinically apparent lipoatrophy was reported as an adverse event but standardized clinical assessments were not performed. Fasting serum levels of total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides were measured at site laboratories at entry and weeks 12, 24, and every 24 weeks thereafter. Low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) was calculated [14] as was non-HDL cholesterol.

Statistical Analysis

The primary metabolic objectives were to compare, between randomized treatment arms, the prevalence of lipoatrophy at 48 and 96 weeks and the changes from baseline in serum lipids at follow-up time points (weeks 12, 24, 48, 72 and 96). The a priori definition of lipoatrophy was a ≥ 20% loss of extremity fat (all limbs combined) from baseline by DEXA scan. Secondary objectives included comparing the percent change in body fat measures. Sensitivity analyses defined lipoatrophy as a ≥ 10%, 30%, or 40% loss of extremity fat. Comparisons among the different selected NRTI included data only from subjects randomized to the efavirenz and lopinavir arms.

Analyses were performed using intent-to-treat principles based on randomized treatment assignment; antiretroviral regimen changes, the use of lipid lowering medications and missing values were ignored. At each time point, analyses included all available data. Additional analyses (as-treated) were performed that censored values after a change in any component of the treatment regimen. Between-group statistical comparisons used either the Wilcoxon rank-sum or Fisher exact test, as appropriate, and were not corrected for multiple comparisons. P values below 0.05 were considered significant. Confidence intervals (CI) for proportions were exact binomial. All presented confidence intervals were 95% two-sided. Logistic regression was used to investigate the association between randomized treatment arm and NRTI choice with the odds of experiencing lipoatrophy at week 96. The original study size of 660 subjects was predicted to have 85% power to detect a 50% reduction in the assumed prevalence of lipoatrophy between any two randomized arms. Enrollment continued after reaching 660 participants to allow enrollment at a Durban South African site (N = 20) and into a substudy [15].

Role of the Funding Source

The ACTG A5142 team, including members from the sponsor (NIH) and collaborating pharmaceutical companies, contributed to the design and analysis of the study. The ACTG conducted the study, collected the data, and performed the analysis. All authors had full access to the full study report and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Results

Accrual and Subject Characteristics

Of the 757 subjects enrolled between January 2003 and May 2004, four subjects were excluded from all analyses because they never began treatment. Baseline characteristics from the 753 evaluable subjects were balanced between treatment arms [11]. Subjects were predominately male (80%) with a median age of 38 years. The majority were non-white with 42% non-Hispanic black, 19% Hispanic, and 36% non-Hispanic white. The median baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA was 4.8 log10 copies/mL and median CD4 cell count was 191 cells/mm3. NRTI choice was 42% zidovudine, 24% stavudine, and 34% tenofovir.

DEXA scans were available at baseline for 693 (92%), at baseline and week 48 for 576 (76%) and at baseline and week 96 in 510 (68%) subjects (171, 166 and 173 in the efavirenz, lopinavir and lopinavir-efavirenz arms, respectively). The most common reasons for missing DEXA scans were missed appointments, subjects exceeding the machine weight limit, and inoperable equipment. Fasting total cholesterol levels were obtained at baseline in 700 (93.0%) subjects and baseline plus week 96 in 492 (65%) subjects. Baseline metabolic characteristics were similar between treatment arms (Table 1). For subjects in the two arms containing NRTI, metabolic parameters were balanced among the three selected NRTI (Table 1), even though use of these agents was not randomized. The median follow up was 112 weeks with no differences among the treatment arms; there was no difference in time to medication change/discontinuation by study regimen or by selected NRTI [11].

Table 1
Baseline metabolic parameters by randomized treatment arm and selected nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)

Measures of Fat Distribution

Based on the a priori definition (≥20% fat loss at 96 weeks), lipoatrophy was more prevalent in the efavirenz arm (32% [95% CI 25%-39%]) than the lopinavir (17% [12%-24%]) or lopinavir-efavirenz arms (9% [5%-14%], p ≤ 0.023 for all three pairwise comparisons, Figure 1a). As-treated analyses yielded very similar results: lipoatrophy was present at week 96 in 31% (23%-40%), 18% (11%-27%) and 9% (5%-16%) of the efavirenz, lopinavir, and lopinavir-efavirenz arms, respectively. The differences in lipoatrophy were not driven by overall weight gain; subjects gained a median of 3.6 kg of total body weight, with no significant differences between arms (all p > 0.05).

Figure 1
Figure 1a: Percent of subjects with lipoatrophy (greater than 20 percent loss of extremity fat from baseline) by randomized treatment arm.

Using a continuous metric, differences in extremity fat among treatment arms were apparent at week 48 and were significant at week 96 (Figure 1c). The median percent increase in extremity fat at week 96 was greatest for the lopinavir-efavirenz arm (17.6%, interquartile range [IQR] 4.1-43.6), followed by the lopinavir arm (9.8%, IQR -11.9-40.8) and least in the efavirenz arm (1.4%, IQR -24.6-31.9). Each pairwise comparison between treatment arms was significant (p ≤ 0.013). Extremity fat increased a median of 1.1, 0.7, and 0.05 kg in the lopinavir-efavirenz, lopinavir, and efavirenz arms, respectively.

By week 96, 9% (95% CI, 5%-16%) of tenofovir, 27% (95% CI, 20%-36%) of zidovudine and 42% (95% CI, 31%-53%) of stavudine-exposed subjects developed lipoatrophy (p < 0.001 for tenofovir versus the other NRTI; p = 0.038 zidovudine versus stavudine; Figure 1b). The same order of frequency of lipoatrophy was observed by NRTI subgroup in both the efavirenz and lopinavir arms. Specifically, the percent of subjects developing lipoatrophy with tenofovir, zidovudine, and stavudine, respectively, were 6% (3/50), 16% (12/73) and 33% (14/43) in the lopinavir arm; and 12% (8/67), 40% (25/63) and 51% (21/41) in the efavirenz arm.

To further investigate potential interactions between randomized treatment and NRTI choice on the occurrence of lipoatrophy, multivariate logistic regression models were used. No significant interaction was found between treatment regimen and NRTI choice (P = 0.73), hence this interaction was not included in subsequent models. In a model that controlled for NRTI choice (Table 2), the odds of developing lipoatrophy at week 96 were higher for efavirenz than for lopinavir (odds ratio 2.66, 95% CI [1.54-4.59]). A second model included other baseline covariates (Table 2). Male sex, lower age, greater baseline extremity fat, and higher baseline CD4 cell count all tended to increase the odds of lipoatrophy at 96 weeks, but the significance of efavirenz versus lopinavir and NRTI choice was unchanged. A final model included all subjects and compared each of the six NRTI-PI and NRTI-NNRTI combinations to the NRTI-sparing lopinavir-efavirenz regimen (Table 3). In this model, the odds of developing lipoatrophy were greatest for stavudine, followed by zidovudine, and then tenofovir. When tenofovir was given with either efavirenz or lopinavir/r, the odds of lipoatrophy at week 96 were not significantly different from the NRTI-sparing lopinavir-efavirenz regimen.

Table 2
Multivariate models assessing factors associated with lipoatrophy (≥ 20% reduction from baseline in extremity fat at 96 weeks by Dexa) for NRTI-containing arms (N = 337)
Table 3
Influence of randomized treatment arm and nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor on occurrence of lipoatrophy (≥ 20% reduction from baseline in extremity fat at 96 weeks); all patients (N = 510)

To evaluate whether the differences in lipoatrophy between the efavirenz and lopinavir arms were sensitive to the definition of lipoatrophy, analyses were repeated with lipoatrophy defined as ≥ 10%, 20%, 30% or 40% loss in extremity fat from baseline to week 96. The differences between the efavirenz and lopinavir arms were still significant regardless of the definition of lipoatrophy, with odds ratios ranging from 2.1- 5.1 (Supplemental Digital Content 1, Figure 1; Table 4, P < 0.003). This was most apparent for zidovudine and stavudine as the selected NRTI. For tenofovir, odds ratio close to one and wide confidence intervals indicate little difference in lipoatrophy between efavirenz or lopinavir/r-containing regimens. As-treated analyses yielded similar results (data not shown).

Table 4
Sensitivity analysis of lipoatrophy occurrence by nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor and treatment arm for NRTI-containing arms (N= 337)

For subjects randomized to receive an NRTI-containing regimen, the median percent increase in extremity fat was 17.2% (IQR -0.82-48.5) at week 96 with tenofovir compared to 2.4% (IQR -21.5-22.7) with zidovudine. By contrast, half of the subjects on stavudine lost at least 10.1% extremity fat (IQR -34.0 to19.1; Figure 1d). The differences between NRTI were significant for tenofovir versus stavudine or zidovudine (p < 0.001, for both comparisons) and between zidovudine and stavudine (p = 0.043), and corresponded to median extremity fat changes of 1.2, 0.14 and -0.48 kg, for tenofovir, zidovudine and stavudine, respectively.

Trunk fat increased from a median of 8.2 kg (IQR 5.0-12.2) at entry to 10.4 kg (IQR 6.8-14.4) at week 96. There were no significant differences at weeks 48 or 96 by randomized treatment or NRTI selection in either percent change in trunk fat or percent of subjects with more than 20% gain in trunk fat.

Serum Lipids

Median cholesterol and triglyceride values increased with time in all treatment arms (p < 0.005 for all comparisons of baseline versus week 96; Supplemental Digital Content 1, Figures 2a-d). The median increases in total cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol were significantly greater for the lopinavir-efavirenz arm compared to the lopinavir arm or the efavirenz arm at all time points. For example, at week 96 the median (IQR) total cholesterol increase for the lopinavir-efavirenz, efavirenz, and lopinavir arms was 57 (25-94), 33 (10-57) and 32 mg/dL (8-60), respectively. In addition, the median increase in triglycerides was larger for the lopinavir-efavirenz arm (62 mg/dL at week 96) compared to the lopinavir (46 mg/dL) and efavirenz (19 mg/dL) arms at all time points (p ≤ 0.030 for all pairwise comparisons). The median increases in total, non-HDL and HDL cholesterol were not significantly different between the lopinavir and efavirenz arms at most time points between weeks 24-96, but triglycerides were significantly higher in the lopinavir arm at all time points between 24 and 96 weeks. As-treated analyses gave similar results.

The total to HDL cholesterol ratio was similar at baseline between randomized arms (median value 4.3, IQR 3.6-5.3) and increased in the lopinavir-efavirenz arm until week 72 (median increases 0.13-0.39), decreased in the efavirenz arm (median reductions of 0.12-0.39, p < 0.05 compared to the lopinavir-efavirenz arm through week 72) and remained nearly unchanged in the lopinavir arm (median reductions of 0.02-0.10, p < 0.05 compared to the lopinavir-efavirenz arm through week 48). The total to HDL cholesterol ratio was significantly higher in the lopinavir arm than the efavirenz at 12 and 24 weeks (p ≤ 0.013), but not after week 24.

At week 96, median total cholesterol had increased by 41 mg/dL (IQR 17-62) for subjects on stavudine, 33 mg/dL (IQR 8.5-54) for subjects on zidovudine, and 22.5 mg/dl (IQR 4-58) for subjects on tenofovir (P = 0.02 for stavudine vs. tenofovir, P > 0.05 for other comparisons). There were similar differences between NRTI for increases in non-HDL cholesterol at week 96. Differences between NRTI for increases in HDL cholesterol and triglycerides were less marked (data not shown).

By week 120, 124 (16%) of study subjects had taken lipid lowering drugs at some point while on study. In the lopinavir-efavirenz arm, 63 subjects (25%) started lipid lowering drugs, compared to 28 in the efavirenz arm (11%) and 33 (13%) in the lopinavir arm. Lipid lowering agents were used in 15% of subjects on stavudine, 12% on zidovudine, and 11% on tenofovir.

Discussion

The need for lifelong antiretroviral therapy of HIV-1 disease argues for the use of first line regimens with the most favorable efficacy and safety profiles. The current study (ACTG 5142) identified important differences in the metabolic effects of two first-line regimens - efavirenz or lopinavir/r with 2 NRTI - recommended by the US DHHS guidelines for treatment of HIV-1 infection in adolescents and adults [16]. Each component of these regimens - NRTI, efavirenz and lopinavir/r, contributed to the important differences in metabolic outcomes. Specifically, lipoatrophy was more frequent with efavirenz + 2 NRTI than lopinavir/r + 2 NRTI. This unexpected difference was observed with zidovudine or stavudine plus lamivudine as the NRTI, but not with tenofovir plus lamivudine. These finding are relevant to the selection of initial treatment regimens, particularly in resource-limited settings, where stavudine or zidovudine plus lamivudine are often the only NRTI available. The study also determined that the NRTI-sparing regimen of lopinavir/r-efavirenz had the lowest risk of lipoatrophy, but the greatest likelihood of serum lipid elevations and resulted in more frequent use of lipid lowering agents. This profile should restrict the use of lopinavir/r-efavirenz for initial therapy to circumstances in which NRTI cannot be used.

The study used an a priori defined, objective measure of lipoatrophy (≥ 20% decline from baseline to week 96 in extremity fat). The findings were not due to differential discontinuations of either randomized regimen or NRTI component, were consistent across different definitions of lipoatrophy (10% - 40%) in sensitivity analyses, and were not altered by inclusion of baseline covariates. As-treated analyses that censored information after regimen/NRTI change yielded concordant results to ITT. Statistical testing confirmed that the effect of randomized regimen component (efavirenz versus lopinavir) was independent of NRTI. Most of the lipoatrophy differences between efavirenz and lopinavir were seen in the strata that received zidovudine and stavudine, though a small sample size in the stavudine stratum may have limited statistical power. A previous small prospective study suggested that efavirenz caused less lipoatrophy than a PI-based regimen (nelfinavir); this study does not support that finding [17].

In other studies, patients initiating stavudine or zidovudine regimens lost subcutaneous fat at a rate of 12-15% per year [8]. Several years of fat loss would be required before lipoatrophy was visibly evident in most patients. Consistent with previous studies, in ACTG A5142, lipoatrophy was most frequent and cumulative in incidence over time in stavudine-containing regimens [8, 10, 18-21]. The pathogenesis of lipoatrophy is incompletely defined, but the prevailing hypothesis is that NRTI-mediated mitochondrial dysfunction in adipocytes leads to fat cell apoptosis and depletion [22-24]. Results from the present study support this model as there was a clear gradation in incidence of lipoatrophy (defined both by categorical and continuous DEXA metrics) that parallels the impact of NRTI on mitochondrial DNA and RNA in vitro: stavudine > zidovudine > tenofovir. Previous studies of tenofovir-containing regimens also found significantly less lipoatrophy than was seen in stavudine-containing regimens [25-27] and the infrequent occurrence of lipoatrophy in subjects on the NRTI-sparing regimen of ACTG 5142 is also consistent with this model.

However, this study revealed complex interactions between the NRTI component of the regimen and efavirenz or lopinavir/r. The frequency of lipoatrophy was greater with efavirenz than lopinavir/r when stavudine or zidovudine were used. The mechanism of greater lipoatrophy with stavudine or zidovudine plus efavirenz compared to lopinavir/r is not clear. A recent randomized comparison of atazanavir with or without ritonavir, given with stavudine and lamivudine, suggested that ritonavir may mitigate the limb fat loss of the regimen. After 96 weeks, the group with ritonavir had 20% less lipoatrophy (defined by DEXA scan as in A5142), a reduction from 49% to 29% (p < 0.05) [28]. Potential mechanisms that could explain these results include a protective effect from the mitochondrial toxicity of NRTI by ritonavir (or lopinavir and ritonavir) or efavirenz-related enhancement of the effect.

This study also found that baseline factors can influence the development of lipoatrophy independent of regimen and NRTI used. Male subjects had 2.85 fold greater odds of lipoatrophy compared to women (P = 0.029). Unexpectedly, subjects with higher baseline CD4 cell counts tended to have more lipoatrophy, a finding that contrasts with previous reports which found either no association [21] or more lipoatrophy associated with lower CD4 cell count [19, 20]. Subjects with greater initial limb fat were not protected from lipoatrophy. Race and baseline lipids did not add to the prediction of those at risk for lipoatrophy. In some but not all previous, mostly retrospective, cross-sectional studies of non-randomized ART, increasing age was associated with a greater risk of lipoatrophy.[20] In this study, a borderline protective effect (odds ration 0.7, P = 0.054) of age was found after accounting for other factors. Differences between our study and others can be explained by different populations and study designs-prospective, randomized in this study versus observational cohorts in previous studies.

Serum lipids increased in all study arms after the initiation of antiretroviral therapy. Unexpectedly, this study found no significant difference in cholesterol fractions between the lopinavir and efavirenz arms of the study. There was also no difference in the use of lipid lowering agents between the lopinavir and efavirenz arms throughout the study. However, triglycerides were uniformly higher among subjects receiving lopinavir/r-containing regimens. Consistent with prior data, stavudine was associated with the greatest lipid elevations among the NRTI. Although the study was too short in duration to detect clinical consequences, the magnitude of total cholesterol changes seen in this study is similar to that seen in cohort studies where an association between lipids and an increased risk of cardiovascular events was found [29, 30]. In one study, an increased myocardial infarction relative rate of 1.3 was seen per 39 mg/dL increase in total cholesterol [29].

There are limitations of this study. NRTI choice was not randomized, but selected prior to randomization, although the distribution of the NRTI chosen was not different across the arms nor was duration of exposure to NRTI agents. The open label design could have affected the use of lipid lowering agents, and the study had inadequate follow-up to discern whether differences in lipid abnormalities would result in increased risk for clinical events such as cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease. The is no universally agreed upon definition for clinical lipoatrophy and this study did not include a case definition or data collection instrument to capture clinically-apparent fat loss primarily because such definitions contain significant subjective bias. However, our measure (DEXA) of lipoatrophy was objective, and hence the open-label design is unlikely to have significantly influenced these data. Furthermore, clinically defined lipoatrophy would have been subject to ascertainment bias, particularly with prior data suggesting that one treatment, i.e., stavudine, was associated with lipoatrophy. As changes in extremity fat measured by DEXA have been associated with clinically-defined lipoatrophy in previous studies [21, 25, 31, 32], the magnitude and significance of the lipoatrophy findings suggest they would be clinically relevant.

This study provides important new information for clinicians and patients on the relative risk and benefits of available antiretroviral regimens for initial therapy of HIV-1 infection. The risk of lipoatrophy can be minimized with a NRTI-sparing regimen or one containing tenofovir and lamivudine as the NRTI component. Although lipoatrophy was infrequent on lopinavir/r plus efavirenz, this combination was suboptimal because of greater increases in triglycerides and use of lipid lowering agents, and more frequent selection of efavirenz resistance [11]. Unexpectedly, lipoatrophy was less common with lopinavir/r than efavirenz regimens containing zidovudine or stavudine, but cholesterol increases were similar and triglyceride increases were greater with lopinavir/r. These findings re-affirm the central role of tenofovir as a component of NRTI-containing regimens for initial therapy and question the use of stavudine or zidovudine in combination with lamivudine and an NNRTI, which are among the most commonly used regimens worldwide [16]. Indeed, after the study was fully enrolled, stavudine was moved from a preferred to an alternative recommended agent in the US DHHS guidelines (10/29/2004 version)[33]. This report adds to the analyses of virologic outcome from ACTG 5142, which showed significantly shorter time to virologic failure for lopinavir/r than efavirenz given with 2 NRTI [11]. Careful selection of regimen components can minimize the risk of lipoatrophy and may improve the risk/benefit ratio of treatment, favoring earlier initiation of antiretroviral therapy.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments

Sponsorship: This work was supported by grants AI 068636 (AIDS Clinical Trials Group Central Grant), AI 068634, AI 069471, AI 27661, AI 069439, AI 25859, AI 069477, AI 069513, AI 069452, AI 27673, AI 069470, AI 069474, AI 069411, AI 069423, AI 069494, AI 069484, AI 069472, AI 38858, AI 069501, AI 32783, AI 069450, AI 32782, AI 069465, AI 069424, AI 38858, AI 069447, AI 069495, AI 069502, AI 069556, AI 069432, AI 46370, AI 069532, AI 46381, AI 46376, AI 34853, AI 069434, AI 060354, AI 064086, AI 36214, AI 069419, AI 069418, AI 50410, AI 45008, RR 00075, RR 00032, RR 00044, RR 00046, RR 02635, RR 00051, RR 00052, RR 00096, RR 00047, RR 00039, and DA 12121 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health. The collaborating pharmaceutical companies provided Lopinavir–ritonavir (Abbott), efavirenz and stavudine XR (Bristol-Myers Squibb), and tenofovir DF (Gilead).

Additional Contributions: The study team gratefully acknowledges the participation of the study volunteers. In addition to the authors, other members of the A5142 study team include: Barbara Brizz (SSS), protocol specialist; Pat Cain (Stanford University Medical Center), protocol field representative; Marlene Cooper and Mary Dobson (Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation), laboratory data coordinators; Michael Dorosh (University of Colorado Health Sciences Center), community representative; Pualani Kondo (University of Hawaii), protocol laboratory technologist; David Rusin (Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation), data manager; Kathleen Squires (Thomas Jefferson University), Co-Investigator; Paul Tran (Division of AIDS, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease), protocol pharmacist. Additional high enrolling investigators: Mitchell Goldman (Indiana University); Hector Bolivar (University of Miami). Additional pharmaceutical collaborators include Mick Hitchcock and Michael Wulfsohn of Gilead Sciences; and Scott C. Brun and Richard A. Rode of Abbott Laboratories.

Footnotes

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00050895

Author contributions: The initial concept for the study was conceived by Drs. Riddler, Haubrich, DiRienzo, Havlir, and Mellors. The final clinical trial protocol was developed by the study team. All data were collected at the study sites of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group and analyzed by Dr. DiRienzo and Ms. Komarow at the Statistical and Data Management Center for the ACTG. Drs. Haubrich and Riddler wrote the first draft of the article with critical review by all authors. All authors, including industry representatives, participated in the development of the study protocol and analysis plan, reviewed the study data reports, and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of interest: Dr. Haubrich reports having received speaking honoraria or consultant fees from Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Schering and Roche and has received research support from Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Tibotec.

Dr. Riddler reports having received lecture or consultation fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant support from Schering-Plough and Hoffman-LaRoche.

Dr. Powderly reports having received lecture or consultation fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Tibotec and grant support from GlaxoSmithKline.

Dr. Garren is an employee of Abbott Laboratories.

Dr. George was an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Dr. Rooney is an employee of Gilead Sciences.

Dr. Haas reports having received research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Tibotec, Tanox, Gilead Sciences, and Bavarian Nordic, and has served on an Advisory Board for GlaxoSmithKline.

Dr. Mellors reports that he is a consultant to Gilead Sciences, Merck, Panacos, and Idenix Pharmaceuticals, has received grant support from Merck, and owns stock options in RFS Pharma.

Dr. DiRienzo, Ms. Komarow, Dr. Klingman and Dr. Havlir declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Participating Sites and Site Personnel: Karen Coleman, RN (Northwestern University), Beverly Sha, MD (Rush University), and Oluwatoyin Adeyemi, MD (Cook County CORECenter) - Northwestern University; W. Keith Henry, MD and Winston Calvert, MD - University of Minnesota; Michael Morgan, FNP and Brenda Jackson, RN - Vanderbilt University; Mitchell Goldman, MD and Janet Hernandez, RN-Indiana University; Margaret A. Fischl, MD - University of Miami School of Medicine; Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD and Jenifer Baer, RN - University of Cincinnati; Suzette Byars and Mae Stewart- University of Alabama; Hannah Edmondson-Melancon, RN, MPH and Connie A. Funk, RN, MPH - University of Southern California; Jolene Noel Connor, RN, BSN and Madeline Torres, RN, BSN - Columbia Collaborative HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Unit; William E. Maher, MD and Laura Laughlin, RN - The Ohio State University; Mary Adams, RN and Christine Hurley, RN - University of Rochester; Clara Zelasky, PA-C and David Wohl, MD - University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill; Deborah McMahon, MD and Barbara Rutecki, MSN, MPH, CRNP - University of Pittsburgh; Princy Kumar, MD and Ioulia Vvedenskaya - Georgetown University; Gary M. Cox, MD and Deitra Wade, RN - Duke University Medical Center; Paul Sax, MD and Jon Gothing, RN - Harvard/BMC ACTU; A. A. Amod, FCPath, Durban International Clinical Trials Unit; Benigno Rodriguez, MD, MSc and Barbara Philpotts, BSN, RN - Case Western Reserve University; Harvey Friedman, MD and Aleshia Thomas, RN - University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Beverly Putnam, MSN and Cathi Basler, MSN - Colorado ACTU; William A. O'Brien, MD, MS and Gerianne Casey, RN - UTMB-Galveston; Ilene Wiggins, RN and Gerianne Casey, RN - Johns Hopkins University; Margrit Carlson, MD and Eric Daar, MD - University of California, Los Angeles; Abby Olusanya, NP and Melissa Schreiber, PA - University of California, Davis Medical Center; Charles Davis, MD and Becky Boyce, RN - University of Maryland, Inst. of Human Virology; Ge-Youl Kim, RN, BSN and Kimberly Gray RN, MSN- Washington University in St. Louis; Joann Volinski, RN - University of California, San Francisco; Jane Norris, PA-C and Sandra Valle PA-C- Stanford University; Julie Hoffman, RN and Susan Cahill, RN - University of California, San Diego; Donald Garmon, NP and Donna Mildvan, MD - Beth Israel Medical Center: Janet Forcht, RN and Charles Gonzalez, MD - New York University/NYC HHC at Bellevue Hospital Center; Karen Tashima, MD and Deborah Perez, RN - The Miriam Hospital; Philip Keiser, MD and Tianna Petersen, MS - UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas; Nancy Hanks, RN and Scott Souza, PharmD - University of Hawaii at Manoa and Queen's Medical Center; Ann C. Collier, MD and Sheryl Storey, PA-C - University of Washington, Seattle; Valery Hughes, FNP and Todd Stroberg, RN - Cornell University; Gregory Smith RN and Ighovera Ofotokun MD - Emory University.

References

1. Grinspoon S, Carr A. Cardiovascular risk and body-fat abnormalities in HIV-infected adults. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:48–62. [PubMed]
2. Dube MP, Sprecher D, Henry WK, Aberg JA, Torriani FJ, Hodis HN, et al. Preliminary guidelines for the evaluation and management of dyslipidemia in adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus and receiving antiretroviral therapy: Recommendations of the Adult AIDS Clinical Trial Group Cardiovascular Disease Focus Group. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31:1216–1224. [PubMed]
3. Wohl DA, McComsey G, Tebas P, Brown TT, Glesby MJ, Reeds D, et al. Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of metabolic complications of HIV infection and its therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43:645–653. [PubMed]
4. Carr A, Emery S, Law M, Puls R, Lundgren JD, Powderly WG. An objective case definition of lipodystrophy in HIV-infected adults: a case-control study. Lancet. 2003;361:726–735. [PubMed]
5. Carr A, Samaras K, Burton S, Law M, Freund J, Chisholm DJ, Cooper DA. A syndrome of peripheral lipodystrophy, hyperlipidaemia and insulin resistance in patients receiving HIV protease inhibitors. AIDS. 1998;12:F51–F58. [PubMed]
6. Fontas E, van Leth F, Sabin CA, Friis-Moller N, Rickenbach M, d'Arminio Monforte A, et al. Lipid profiles in HIV-infected patients receiving combination antiretroviral therapy: are different antiretroviral drugs associated with different lipid profiles? J Infect Dis. 2004;189:1056–1074. [PubMed]
7. Shikuma CM, Yang Y, Glesby MJ, Meyer WA, 3rd, Tashima KT, Ribaudo HJ, et al. Metabolic effects of protease inhibitor-sparing antiretroviral regimens given as initial treatment of HIV-1 Infection (AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study A5095) J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;44:540–550. [PubMed]
8. Mallon PW, Miller J, Cooper DA, Carr A. Prospective evaluation of the effects of antiretroviral therapy on body composition in HIV-1-infected men starting therapy. AIDS. 2003;17:971–979. [PubMed]
9. Bacchetti P, Gripshover B, Grunfeld C, Heymsfield S, McCreath H, Osmond D, et al. Fat distribution in men with HIV infection. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005;40:121–131. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Dube MP, Parker RA, Tebas P, Grinspoon SK, Zackin RA, Robbins GK, et al. Glucose metabolism, lipid, and body fat changes in antiretroviral-naive subjects randomized to nelfinavir or efavirenz plus dual nucleosides. AIDS. 2005;19:1807–1818. [PubMed]
11. Riddler SA, Haubrich R, DiRienzo AG, Peeples L, Powderly WG, Klingman KL, et al. Class-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2095–2106. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
12. Piliero PJ. Pharmacokinetic properties of nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004;37 1:S2–S12. [PubMed]
13. AIDS Clinical Trials Group Metabolic Subcommittee. AACTG Standard Operating Procedures for Whole-Body DEXA Scans Performed for Body Composition Measurements and Regional (Hip and Spine) DEXA Scans Performed for Bone Mineral Density Studies. [December 2008]. http://aactg.s3.com/Members/download/final/asop/dexas.doc.
14. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972;18:499–502. [PubMed]
15. Stein J, Cotter B, Parker R. American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. Dallas, TX: Nov 13-16, 2005. Antiretroviral therapy improves endothelial function in individuals with human immunodeficiency virus infection: a prospective, randomized multicenter trial (Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study A5152s)
16. DHHS Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. [12/12/2008]. www.aidsinfo.nih.gov.
17. Dube MP, Komarow L, Mulligan K, Grinspoon SK, Parker RA, Robbins GK, et al. Long-term body fat outcomes in antiretroviral-naive participants randomized to nelfinavir or efavirenz or both plus dual nucleosides. Dual X-ray absorptiometry results from A5005s, a substudy of Adult Clinical Trials Group 384. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;45:508–514. [PubMed]
18. Carr A. HIV lipodystrophy: risk factors, pathogenesis, diagnosis and management. AIDS. 2003;17(Suppl 1):S141–148. [PubMed]
19. Lichtenstein KA, Ward DJ, Moorman AC, Delaney KM, Young B, Palella FJ, Jr, et al. Clinical assessment of HIV-associated lipodystrophy in an ambulatory population. AIDS. 2001;15:1389–1398. [PubMed]
20. Lichtenstein KA. Redefining lipodystrophy syndrome: risks and impact on clinical decision making. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005;39:395–400. [PubMed]
21. Miller J, Carr A, Emery S, Law M, Mallal S, Baker D, et al. HIV lipodystrophy: prevalence, severity and correlates of risk in Australia. HIV Med. 2003;4:293–301. [PubMed]
22. Mallon PW, Unemori P, Sedwell R, Morey A, Rafferty M, Williams K, et al. In vivo, nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors alter expression of both mitochondrial and lipid metabolism genes in the absence of depletion of mitochondrial DNA. J Infect Dis. 2005;191:1686–1696. [PubMed]
23. Nolan D, Hammond E, James I, McKinnon E, Mallal S. Contribution of nucleoside-analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy to lipoatrophy from the population to the cellular level. Antivir Ther. 2003;8:617–626. [PubMed]
24. Nolan D, Hammond E, Martin A, Taylor L, Herrmann S, McKinnon E, et al. Mitochondrial DNA depletion and morphologic changes in adipocytes associated with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy. AIDS. 2003;17:1329–1338. [PubMed]
25. Podzamczer D, Ferrer E, Sanchez P, Gatell JM, Crespo M, Fisac C, et al. Less lipoatrophy and better lipid profile with abacavir as compared to stavudine: 96-week results of a randomized study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;44:139–147. [PubMed]
26. Pozniak AL, Gallant JE, DeJesus E, Arribas JR, Gazzard B, Campo RE, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz versus fixed-dose zidovudine/lamivudine and efavirenz in antiretroviral-naive patients: virologic, immunologic, and morphologic changes--a 96-week analysis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;43:535–540. [PubMed]
27. Gallant JE, Staszewski S, Pozniak AL, DeJesus E, Suleiman JM, Miller MD, et al. Efficacy and safety of tenofovir DF vs stavudine in combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive patients: a 3-year randomized trial. JAMA. 2004;292:191–201. [PubMed]
28. McComsey G, Rightmire R, Wirtz V, Yang R, Mathew M, McGrath D. Body composition changes in ARV-naive subjects treated with atazanavir or atazanavir/ritonavir-based once-daily HAART: 96-week CT and DEXA data. 11th European AIDS Conference; Madrid, Spain. October 24-27 2007.
29. Friis-Moller N, Reiss P, Sabin CA, Weber R, Monforte A, El-Sadr W, et al. Class of antiretroviral drugs and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1723–1735. [PubMed]
30. Friis-Moller N, Sabin CA, Weber R, d'Arminio Monforte A, El-Sadr WM, Reiss P, et al. Combination antiretroviral therapy and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1993–2003. [PubMed]
31. Mallal SA, John M, Moore CB, James IR, McKinnon EJ. Contribution of nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors to subcutaneous fat wasting in patients with HIV infection. AIDS. 2000;14:1309–1316. [PubMed]
32. Smith DE, Hudson J, Martin A, Freund J, Griffiths MR, Kalnins S, et al. Centralized assessment of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in multicenter studies of HIV-associated lipodystrophy. HIV Clin Trials. 2003;4:45–49. [PubMed]
33. DHHS Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. [12/12/2008]. www.aidsinfo.nih.gov 2003 version.
PubReader format: click here to try

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...