Comparison of Tenofovir, Zidovudine, or Stavudine as part of first-line antiretroviral therapy in a resource-limited-setting: a cohort study

Velen, Kavindhran, Lewis, James J. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-2761, Charalambous, Salome, Grant, Alison D., Churchyard, Gavin J. and Hoffmann, Christopher J. 2013. Comparison of Tenofovir, Zidovudine, or Stavudine as part of first-line antiretroviral therapy in a resource-limited-setting: a cohort study. PLoS ONE 8 (5) , e64459. 10.1371/journal.pone.0064459

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Background Tenofovir (TDF) is part of the WHO recommended first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART); however, there are limited data comparing TDF to other nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in resource-limited-settings. Using a routine workplace and community-based ART cohort in South Africa, we assessed single drug substitution, HIV RNA suppression, CD4 count increase, loss-from-care, and mortality between TDF, stavudine (d4T) 30 mg dose, and zidovudine (AZT). Methods In a prospective cohort study we included ART naïve patients aged ≥17 years-old who initiated ART containing TDF, d4T, or AZT between 2007 and 2009. For analysis of single drug substitutions we used a competing-risks time-to-event analysis; for loss-from-care, mixed-effect Poisson modeling; for HIV RNA suppression, competing-risks logistic regression; for CD4 count slope, mixed-effects linear regression; and for mortality, proportional hazards modeling. Results Of 6,196 patients, the initial drug was TDF for 665 (11%), d4T for 4,179 (68%), and AZT for 1,352 (22%). During the first 6 months of ART, the adjusted hazard ratio for a single drug substitution was 2.3 for d4T (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27, 19) and 5.2 for AZT (95% CI: 1.1, 23), compared to TDF; whereas, after 6 months, it was 10 (95% CI: 5.8, 18) and 4.4 (95% CI: 2.5, 7.8) for d4T and AZT, respectively. Virologic suppression was similar by agent; however, CD4 count rise was lowest for AZT. The adjusted hazard ratio for loss-from-care, when compared to TDF, was 1.5 (95% CI: 1.1, 1.9) for d4T and 1.2 (95% CI: 1.1, 1.4) for AZT. The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality, when compared to TDF, was 2.7 (95% CI: 2.0, 3.5) and 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3, 1.5) and for d4T and AZT, respectively. Discussion In routine care, TDF appeared to perform better than either d4T or AZT, most notably with less drug substitution and mortality than for either other agent.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Social Sciences (Includes Criminology and Education)
Publisher:	Public Library of Science
ISSN:	1932-6203
Date of Acceptance:	15 April 2013
Last Modified:	26 Jun 2024 14:46
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/169548

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item