A Randomized Trial of Nelfinavir and Abacavir in Combination with Efavirenz and Adefovir Dipivoxil in HIV-1-Infected Persons with Virological Failure Receiving Indinavir

Objectives (1) To determine the efficacy and safety of nelfinavir versus placebo and abacavir versus other approved nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), in combination with efavirenz and adefovir dipovoxil, in subjects experiencing virological failure on an indinavir-containing regimen. (2) To determine the relationship of baseline viral drug resistance genotype and phenotype to virological outcome.Design and methods A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicentre study in non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-naive subjects conducted by the Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG 372B) and an open-label, single-arm, multicentre study in NNRTI-experienced subjects (ACTG 372D). Ninety-four subjects were randomized in ACTG 372B, which used a factorial design. All subjects received efavirenz and adefovir dipivoxil, and were randomly assigned to nelfinavir versus nelfinavir placebo and abacavir versus previously FDA-approved NRTIs. Twenty subjects received abacavir, efavirenz, adefovir dipivoxil and nelfinavir in ACTG 372D. Primary analysis time-point was at 16 weeks with follow-up through 48 weeks. Measures of efficacy were plasma HIV-1 RNA levels and CD4 cell counts. Adverse events were recorded according to ACTG criteria. Baseline reverse transcriptase and protease genotype, and drug susceptibility phenotype were determined. Resistance analyses were combined for ACTG 372B and D.Results At 16 weeks in ACTG 372B, 67% of subjects reached a primary study treatment failure end-point. In factorial analyses, nelfinavir was superior to nelfinavir placebo in rate of this failure end-point (56 vs 78%, P=0.02), but abacavir was not different from other NRTIs. No differences by nelfinavir or abacavir factor were noted at week 48. The failure end-point rate was significantly lower in those with baseline RNA levels=15000 copies/ml versus those with >15000 copies/ml (42 vs 79%, P<0.001). Higher genotypic and phenotypic sensitivity scores were significantly correlated with better virological responses (P=0.003 and 0.030, respectively). Conclusions: (1) Treatment responses were low in this trial of nelfinavir, abacavir, efavirenz and adefovir dipivoxil for subjects experiencing virological failure on an indinavir-containing regimen. (2) Subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels=15000 copies/ml had a significantly better virological response than those with >15000 copies/ml at baseline. Switching at lower, rather than higher, viral load levels improved response rates in treatment-experienced subjects. (3) Summary measures of regimen sensitivity (such as, genotypic and phenotypic sensitivity scores) are useful in the evaluation of multidrug combination regimens.