RESEARCH ARTICLE
Clinical, Immunological and Virological Responses of Zidovudine-Lamivudine-Nevirapine versus Zidovudine-Lamivudine-Efavirenz Antiretroviral Treatment (ART) Among HIV-1 Infected Children: Asella Teaching and Referral Hospital, South-East Ethiopia
Abebe Sorsa*
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2018Volume: 12
First Page: 11
Last Page: 18
Publisher Id: TOMINFOJ-12-11
DOI: 10.2174/1874431101812010011
Article History:
Received Date: 11/10/2017Revision Received Date: 08/02/2018
Acceptance Date: 31/03/2018
Electronic publication date: 30/04/2018
Collection year: 2018
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Background:
Antiretroviral Therapy(ART) remarkably reduced HIV-1 infection-related mortality in children. The efficacy and safety of different ART regimen in pediatric age groups remained issues of debates and available evidence were scarce especially among children taking the of one the two prototypes (NVP or EFV) Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor(NNRTI) as backbone of ART regimen.
Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare clinical, immunological and virological responses of zidovudine-lamivudine-nevirapine (AZT+3TC+ NVP) versus zidovudine-lamivudine-efavirenz (AZT+3TC+EFV) ART regimen among HIV-1 infected children.
Methods:
A retrospective cross-sectional study was done by reviewing medical records of the patients to evaluate clinical, immunological and virological outcomes of NVP+AZT+3TC versus EFV+AZT+3TC ART regimen among HIV-1 infected children. Data were entered into Epi-info version 7.2.2 for clean up and exported to SPSS version 17 for analysis. Paired and Independent t-tests were used to compare the CD4 cell count, weight and virologic level at six months with corresponding baseline value; and the mean weight, CD4 gain and viral suppression across the two ART regimens at six months of ART respectively.
Results:
Medical records of 122 patients from NVP-based regimen and 61 patients from EFV group were reviewed. After six months of NVP+AZT+3TC treatment, the mean CD4 cell count difference from baseline was 215(95% CI, 175.414-245.613, p<0.001). From EFV+AZT+3TC group, the mean CD4 cell count difference from baseline was 205(95% CI 155.404-235.623, p< 0.001). The mean CD4 count difference between the two regimens was comparable (p 0.145). Similarly, optimal viral suppression was achieved in 82% (100/122) of NVP+AZT+3TC regimen and 83% (44/61) of EFV+AZT+3TC regimen which was still comparable across the two groups.
Conclusion:
There was no difference in clinical, immunological and virological outcomes among patients taking NVP+AZT+3TC or EFV+AZT+3TC ART regimen.
