Hiv guideline who 2010

Antiretroviral therapy
for HIV infection in adults
and adolescents
Recommendations for a public health approach
2010revision
AntiretroviraltherapyforHIVinfectioninadultsandadolescentsRecommendationsforapublichealthapproach2010revision
Strengthening health services to fight HIV/AIDS
HIV/AIDS ProgrammeFor more information, contact:
World Health Organization
Department of HIV/AIDS
20, avenue Appia
1211 Geneva 27
Switzerland
E-mail: hiv-aids@who.int
www.who.int/hiv
ISBN 978 92 4 159976 4

WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and adolescents: recommendations for a public health approach.
– 2010 rev.
1.Anti-retroviral agents - therapeutic use. 2.Anti-retroviral agents - pharmacology. 3.HIV infections – drug therapy.
4.Adult. 5.Adolescent. 6.Guidelines. 7.Developing countries. I.World Health Organization.
ISBN 978 92 4 159976 4 (NLM classification: WC 503.2)
© World Health Organization 2010
All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization can be obtained from WHO Press, World Health
Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel.: +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857; e-mail:
bookorders@who.int). Requests for permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications – whether for sale or for
noncommercial distribution – should be addressed to WHO Press, at the above address (fax: +41 22 791 4806; e-mail:
permissions@who.int).
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city
or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent
approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or
recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors
and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this
publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or
implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World
Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use.
Printed in Austria

Antiretroviral therapy
for HIV infection in adults
and adolescents
Recommendations for a public
health approach
2010 revision

iii
1. Acronyms and abbreviations............................................................................................... 1
2. Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. 5
3. Executive summary............................................................................................................. 7
4. Background......................................................................................................................... 8
5. Funding and declarations of interest................................................................................... 9
6. Guiding principles............................................................................................................. 10
7. Objectives of the guidelines and target audience..............................................................11
8. Methodology and process................................................................................................ 12
9. From evidence to recommendation.................................................................................. 14
10. Adapting the guidelines.................................................................................................... 17
11. Summary of changes........................................................................................................ 19
12. Recommendations at a glance......................................................................................... 20
13. When to start..................................................................................................................... 24
13.1. Recommendations................................................................................................ 24
13.2. Evidence................................................................................................................ 24
13.3. Summary of findings.............................................................................................. 25
13.4. Benefits and risks.................................................................................................. 26
13.5. Acceptability and feasibility................................................................................... 26
13.6. Clinical considerations.......................................................................................... 27
14. What to start...................................................................................................................... 31
14.2. Evidence................................................................................................................ 31
14.3. Summary of main findings..................................................................................... 32
14.6. The choice between NVP and EFV........................................................................ 34
14.7. AZT + 3TC + EFV option...................................................................................... 35
14.8. AZT + 3TC + NVP option...................................................................................... 36
14.9. TDF + 3TC (or FTC) + EFV option........................................................................ 37
14.10. TDF + 3TC (or FTC) + NVP option........................................................................ 38
14.11. Triple NRTI option.................................................................................................. 39
14.12. Stavudine (d4T)..................................................................................................... 39
14.13. NRTIs not to be used together............................................................................... 40
Contents

iv
Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and adolescents
15. Specific populations – when and what to start................................................................. 41
15.1. Recommendations for HIV-infected pregnant women........................................... 41
15.2. Recommendations for women with prior exposure to antiretrovirals for PMTCT... 42
15.3. Recommendations for HIV/HBV coinfection.......................................................... 44
15.4. Recommendations for HIV/tuberculosis coinfection............................................. 45
15.5. Rifabutin................................................................................................................ 46
16. When to switch ART.......................................................................................................... 48
16.2. Evidence................................................................................................................ 48
17. Second-line regimens....................................................................................................... 53
17.1. Recommendations.................................................................................................... 53
17.2. Evidence................................................................................................................ 53
17.7. Selection of second-line NRTIs............................................................................. 56
17.8. Maintaining 3TC in the second-line regimen......................................................... 56
17.9. NRTIs for HIV/HBV coinfection.............................................................................. 57
17.10. Selection of boosted protease inhibitor................................................................. 57
18. Third-line regimens........................................................................................................... 58
18.1. Recommendations.................................................................................................... 58
18.2. Evidence................................................................................................................ 58
19. Package of care interventions........................................................................................... 61
19.1. Guiding principles................................................................................................. 61
19.2. Voluntary counselling and testing and provider-initiated testing and counselling..... 61
19.3. Preventing further transmission of HIV.................................................................. 61
19.4. The Three I's for HIV/TB......................................................................................... 62
19.5. Cotrimoxazole prophylaxis.................................................................................... 62
19.6. Sexually transmitted infections.............................................................................. 62
19.7. Treatment preparedness....................................................................................... 63
19.8. Early initiation of ART............................................................................................. 63
19.9. ART as prevention................................................................................................. 63

v
20. Laboratory monitoring....................................................................................................... 64
20.1. Guiding principles................................................................................................. 64
20.2. Laboratory monitoring on ART.............................................................................. 65
21. Annexes............................................................................................................................. 67
21.1. Special note on coinfection with HIV and hepatitis C............................................ 67
21.2. Dosages of recommended antiretrovirals............................................................. 67
21.3. Toxicities and recommended drug substitutions................................................... 69
21.4. ARV-related adverse events and recommendations............................................. 71
21.5. Diagnostic criteria for HIV-related clinical events.................................................. 73
21.6. Grading of selected clinical and laboratory toxicities............................................ 81
21.7. Prevention and assessment of HIV drug resistance.............................................. 86
21.8. Special note on antiretroviral pharmacovigilance.................................................. 87
21.9. GRADE evidence tables........................................................................................ 89
22. References...................................................................................................................... 126

1
3TC lamivudine
AB antibody
ABC abacavir
ACTG AIDS Clinical Trials Group
AIDS acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
ALT alanine aminotransferase
ANC antenatal clinic
ART antiretroviral therapy
ARV antiretroviral
AST aspartate aminotransferase
ATV atazanavir
AZT zidovudine (also known as ZDV)
BID twice daily
BMI body mass index
bPI boosted protease inhibitor
CD4 cell T-lymphocyte bearing CD4 receptor
CEM cohort event monitoring
CMV cytomegalovirus
CNS central nervous system
CXR chest X-ray
d4T stavudine
DART Development of Antiretroviral Therapy (in Africa)
DBS dried blood spot
ddI didanosine
DNA deoxyribonucleic acid
DRV darunavir
EC enteric-coated
EFV efavirenz
EIA enzyme immunoassay
ETV etravirine
EPTB extrapulmonary tuberculosis
FBC full blood count
FDC fixed-dose combination
FPV fos-amprenavir
FTC emtricitabine
1. Acronyms and abbreviations

2
GDG Guidelines Development Group
GI gastrointestinal
GNP+ Global Network of People Living with HIV
GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
Hb haemoglobin
HBV hepatitis B virus
HCV hepatitis C virus
HDL high-density lipoprotein
HIV human immunodeficiency virus
HIVDR HIV drug resistance
HIVRNA human immunodeficiency virus ribonucleic acid
HSV herpes simplex virus
ICW International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS
IDU injecting drug user
IDV indinavir
INH isoniazid
IRIS immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome
ITCP International Treatment Preparedness coalition
LPV lopinavir
LPV/r lopinavir/ritonavir
MTCT mother-to-child transmission (of HIV)
NAM nucleoside/nucleotide analogue mutation
NFV nelfinavir
NNRTI non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor
NRTI nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor
NVP nevirapine
OBR optimized background regimen
OI opportunistic infection
OST opioid substitution treatment
PCP Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia
PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
PETRA Perinatal Transmission Study
PGL persistent generalized lymphadenopathy
PI protease inhibitor
PLHIV people living with HIV

3
PML progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
PMTCT prevention of mother-to-child transmission (of HIV)
/r low-dose ritonavir
RAL raltegravir
RBV ribavirin
RCT randomized clinical trial
RNA ribonucleic acid
RT reverse transcriptase
RTI reverse transcriptase inhibitor
RTV ritonavir
Sd-NVP single-dose nevirapine
SJS Stevens-Johnson syndrome
SQV saquinavir
STI structured treatment interruption
TB tuberculosis
TDF tenofovir disoproxil fumarate
TEN toxic epidermal necrolysis
TLC total lymphocyte count
VL viral load
ULN upper limit of normal
UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
WBC white blood cell count
WHO World Health Organization

5
The World Health Organization wishes to express its gratitude to the following institutions,
technical committees and consultants for their contributions to the revision of the antiretroviral
treatment recommendations for HIV-infected adults and adolescents.
University of California, San Francisco, USA
Jamal Harris, Tara Horvath, Eliza Humphreys, Gail Kennedy, George Rutherford, Karen Schlein,
Sarah Wan, Gavrilah Wells, Rose Whitmore
South African Cochrane Centre, Medical Research Council of South Africa,
Cape Town, South Africa
Joy Oliver, Elizabeth Pienaar, Nandi Siegfried
University of California, Berkeley, USA
Andrew Anglemyer
University of Minnesota, USA
Alicen Spaulding
Johns Hopkins University, USA
Larry Chang
University of North Carolina, USA
Amitabh Suthar
University of Birmingham, UK
Olalekan Uthman
McMaster University, Canada
Nancy Santesso, Holger Schünemann,
University of Alberta, Canada
Ameeta Singh, Thomas Wong
University of Liverpool, UK
David Back, Sara Gibbons, Saye Khoo, Kay Seden
Griffith University, Australia
Patricia Whyte
University of Bern, Switzerland
Martin Brinkhof, Mathias Egger, Olivia Keiser
Global Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (GNP+)
International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS Southern Africa (ICW)
Members of the WHO ART Guidelines Committee
Carlos Avila (UNAIDS, Switzerland), Lori Bollinger (Futures Institute, USA), Alexandra Calmy
(University of Geneva, Switzerland), Zengani Chirwa (Ministry of Health, Malawi), Francois Dabis
(ISPED, France), Shaffiq Essajee (Clinton Foundation, USA), Loon Gangte (GNP+, India), Julian
Gold (University of New South Wales, Australia), James Hakim (University of Zimbabwe,
2. Acknowledgements

6
Zimbabwe), Charles Holmes (PEPFAR, USA), Robert Josiah (NACP, Tanzania), Ayesha Khan
(Ministry of Health, Pakistan), Stephen Lawn (University of Cape Town, South Africa), Frank Lule
(WHO AFRO, Congo), Jean-Paul Moatti (INSERM, France), Lynne Mofenson (NIH, USA), Irene
Mukui (Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation, Kenya), Paula Munderi (Uganda Virus Research
Institute, Uganda), Mutinta Nalubamba (Ministry of Health, Zambia), Portia Ngcaba (TAC, South
Africa), Megan O’Brien (Clinton Foundation, USA), Sylvia Ojoo (Institute of Human Virology,
Kenya), Vladimir Osin (ITPC, Russia), Praphan Phanuphak (Thai Red Cross, Thailand), BB
Rewari (National AIDS Control Organization, India), Papa Salif Sow (University of Dakar,
Senegal), Omar Sued (WHO AMRO, USA), Tengiz Tsertsvadze (National AIDS Programme,
Georgia), Rochelle Walensky (Harvard Center for AIDS Research, USA), Robin Wood (University
of Cape Town, South Africa), Augustin Yuma (National HIV/AIDS Programme, Democratic
Republic of Congo), Oleg Yurin (Central Institute of Epidemiology, Russia).
External peer reviewers
Xavier Anglaret (University of Bordeaux, France), Stefano Lazzari (Global Fund for AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria, Switzerland), Veronique Bortolotti (WHO EMRO, Egypt), Pedro Cahn
(Fundación Huesped, Argentina), Serge Eholie (ANEPA, Côte d'Ivoire), Jean Baptiste Guiard-
Schmid (WHO AFRO, Burkina Faso), Scott Hammer (Columbia University, USA), Mark Harrington
(TAG, USA), Elly Katabira (Makerere University, Uganda), Ricardo Kuchembecker (Ministry of
Health, Brazil), Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy (YRG Care, India), Barbara Marston (CDC, USA),
Elliot Raizes (CDC, USA), Padmini Srikantiah (WHO SEARO, India).
WHO also wishes to acknowledge comments and contributions made by Jacqueline Bataringaya
(International AIDS Society, Switzerland), Silvia Bertagnolio (WHO/HTM/HIV), Jose Maria Garcia
Calleja (WHO/HTM/HIV), Helen Chun (Department of Defense, USA), Suzanne Crowe (Burnet
Institute, Australia), Micheline Diepart (WHO/HTM/HIV), Boniface Dongmo (WHO/HTM/HIV),
Andrew Doupe (WHO/HTM/HIV), Ted Ellenbrook (CDC, USA), Robert Ferris (PEPFAR, USA),
Haileyesus Getahun (WHO/HTM/STB), Sarah Glover (LSHTM, United Kingdom), Reuben Granich
(WHO/HTM/HIV), Catherine Godfrey (NIH, USA), Alexandre Hamilton (St. Vincent's Hospital,
Australia), John Kaplan (CDC, USA), John Liddy (independent consultant, Thailand), Mary Lou
Ludgren (CDC, USA), Brian McMahon (CDC, USA), Thomas Minior (PEPFAR, USA), Neil Parkin
(WHO/HTM/HIV), Francoise Renaud-Thery (WHO/HIV/SIR), Erik Schouten (Ministry of Health,
Malawi), Delphine Sculier (WHO/HTM/STB), Nathan Shaffer (WHO/HTM/HIV), Tin Tin Sint (WHO/
HTM/HIV), Yves Souteyrand (WHO/HTM/HIV), Steven Wiersma (WHO/FCH/IVB) and Paul Weidle
(CDC, USA).
Special thanks go to Victoria Anagbo, Sally Girvin and Nadia Hilal of WHO/HTM/HIV, who
provided administrative support, and to Chris Duncombe of HIVNAT Research Network
(Thailand) and the University of New South Wales (Australia), who was the major writer of the
ART guidelines document.
The work was coordinated by Siobhan Crowley and Marco Vitoria of WHO/HTM/HIV, Geneva,
Switzerland.

7
Since the publication in 2006 of Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and adolescents:
Recommendations for a public health approach, new evidence has emerged on when to initiate
ART, optimal ART regimens, the management of HIV coinfection with tuberculosis and chronic
viral hepatitis and the management of ART failure. This evidence formed the basis for the
recommendations contained in the 2010 update, which outlines a public health approach to the
delivery of ART for adults and adolescents in settings with limited health systems capacity and
resources. The recommendations were based on the preparation GRADE evidence profiles,
systematic and targeted reviews, risk-benefit analyses, consultations with PLHIV, technical
reports, and assessments of impact, feasibility and cost.
This guideline revision was conducted in accordance with procedures outlined by the WHO
Guidelines Review Committee and is based on the GRADE approach to evidence review. The
process involved four separate working groups: the Internal WHO ART Guideline Working Group,
the ART Guideline Drafting Group, the external ART Peer Review Panel and the full ART Guideline
Review Committee.
The consensus recommendations, which emerged from consultations of the working groups,
encourage earlier HIV diagnosis and earlier antiretroviral treatment, and promote the use of less
toxic regimens and more strategic laboratory monitoring. The guidelines identify the most
potent, effective and feasible first-line, second-line and subsequent treatment regimens,
applicable to the majority of populations, the optimal timing of ART initiation and improved
criteria for ART switching, and introduce the concept of third-line antiretroviral regimens.
The primary audiences are national treatment advisory boards, partners implementing HIV care
and treatment, and organizations providing technical and financial support to HIV care and
treatment programmes in resource-limited settings.
It is critical that national ART programme and public health leaders consider these
recommendations in the context of countries’ HIV epidemics, the strengths and weaknesses of
health systems, and the availability of financial, human and other essential resources. In adapting
these guidelines, care must be exercised to avoid undermining current treatment programmes,
to protect access for the most at-risk populations, to achieve the greatest impact for the greatest
number of people and to ensure sustainability. It is similarly important to ensure that the
adaptation of these guidelines do not stifle ongoing or planned research, since the new
recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and new information for sustainability
and future modifications of existing guidelines will be needed.
3. Executive summary

8
WHO guidelines for ART for HIV infection in adults and adolescents were originally published in
2002, and were revised in 2003 and 2006. New evidence has emerged on when to initiate ART,
optimal ART regimens, the management of HIV coinfection with tuberculosis and chronic viral
hepatitis, and the management of ART failure. This evidence formed the basis for the new
recommendations contained in the 2010 guidelines and summarized in the Rapid advice:
Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and adolescents (http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/arv/
rapid_advice_art.pdf). Consideration was given to the risks and benefits of implementing each
recommendation, in addition to its acceptability, cost and feasibility. The guidelines incorporate
the best available evidence within a framework that emphasizes the public health approach to
the scaling up of quality HIV care and treatment.(1)
The consensus recommendations encourage earlier diagnosis and earlier treatment, and
promote the use of less toxic regimens and more strategic laboratory monitoring. It is critical that
national ART programme and public health leaders consider these recommendations in the
context of countries’ HIV epidemics, the strengths and weaknesses of health systems, and the
availability of financial, human and other essential resources.(1) Care must be exercised to avoid
undermining current treatment programmes, to protect access for the most at-risk populations,
to achieve the greatest impact for the greatest number of people and to ensure sustainability.
4. Background

9
Funding to support this work comes from the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR), The United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS Unified Budget and Workplan
(UNAIDS UBW), and specific funds through staff time.
Declaration of interest forms were collected from every member of each guidelines working
group. Two declarations of interest were made. Dr Charles Holmes declared previous
employment, which ceased in January 2008, by Gilead Sciences, largely for phase 1 studies of
experimental ARVs. This interest was assessed by the WHO Secretariat as not sufficient to
preclude Dr Holmes’ participation in this meeting. Dr Pedro Cahn acted as a member of the Peer
Review Group and declared that he serves as advisory board member for Abbott, Bristol Myers
Squibb, Tibotec, Merck, Avexa, Pfizer and Gilead. This interest was assessed by the WHO
Secretariat as not sufficient to preclude Dr Cahn’s participation in this meeting.
5. Funding and declarations of interest

10
The principles guiding the development of these recommendations were as follows:
• to prioritize the best options for treatment of HIV infection and propose alternatives if the
best option was not available;
• to be clear when high-quality evidence supports a strong recommendation;
• to be clear when low-quality evidence or an uncertain balance between risks and benefit
supports a conditional recommendation;
• to be both realistic and aspirational, recognizing the possibility for progressive
implementation of the recommendations over the lifetime of these guidelines until 2012.
6. Guiding principles

11
• To provide evidence-based recommendations outlining a public health approach to the
delivery of ART for adults and adolescents, with a focus on settings with limited health
systems capacity and resources.
• To identify the most potent, effective and feasible first-line, second-line and subsequent
treatment regimens as components of expanded national responses for HIV care.
• To develop recommendations applicable to the majority of populations regarding the
optimal timing of ART initiation, preferred first-line and second-line ARV regimens and
improved criteria for ART switching, and to introduce the concept of third-line ART
regimens.
The target audiences are national treatment advisory boards, partners implementing HIV care
and treatment, and organizations providing technical and financial support to HIV care and
treatment programmes in resource-limited settings.
7. Objectives of the guidelines and target audience

12
Throughout 2009, WHO worked to update the guidelines for Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection
in adults and adolescents: Recommendations for a public health approach through a series of
coordinated efforts to review and synthesize new and emerging evidence on the optimal use of
ART within a public health approach. This process was based on the preparation GRADE
profiles, systematic and targeted reviews, risk-benefit analyses, technical reports and
assessments of impact, feasibility and cost.
All evidence documentation prepared for these guidelines is available on the 2009-2010 ART
guidelines for adults and adolescents evidence map web page (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/
treatment/evidence3/en/index.html).
Preparatory work included the following:
• GRADE profiles on when to start ART, what to use in first-line and second-line regimens
and when to switch to second-line therapy.
• Systematic and targeted reviews on:
−− the management of HIV/hepatitis and HIV/TB coinfection;
−− ART safety, toxicity and teratogenicity;
−− the utility of CD4 count and viral load in monitoring ART;
−− ART failure criteria;
−− third-line ART;
−− interactions between ARVs and opioids, and drugs used for the treatment of
tuberculosis (TB), viral hepatitis and malaria.
• Consultations with PLHIV.
• A report on ART adherence.
• A review of current ART guidelines from 26 countries.
• Costing information based on studies of procurement and production of ARVs.
• An impact assessment of the number of patients in need of treatment according to
various CD4 count thresholds.
• A feasibility analysis for the introduction of the proposed guidelines in Malawi.
Search strategies employed in the systematic reviews, meta-analyses and GRADE profiles
which were conducted by the Cochrane HIV/AIDS group followed methodology described in The
Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.0.2; last updated
September 2009, available at http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/.
In reviews where data were not amenable to meta-analysis and/or GRADE profiles, systematic
searches, using relevant key words and search strings, were conducted of electronic databases
(Medline/Pubmed, Embase, CENTRAL), conference databases (Aegis, AIDSearch, NLM
Gateway and hand searches) and clinical trial registers (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ www.controlled-
trials.com www.pactr.org).
This guideline revision is in accordance with procedures outlined by the WHO Guidelines Review
Committee and is based on the GRADE approach to evidence review. The process involved four
8. Methodology and process

13
separate working groups: the Internal WHO ART Guideline Working Group, the ART Guideline
Drafting Group, the external ART Peer Review Panel and the full ART Guideline Review Committee.
The composition of the groups was in accordance with WHO procedures for guideline
development and included HIV experts, civil society representatives, programme managers,
costing experts, guideline methodologists, epidemiologists, health economists, PEPFAR
technical working group representatives, PLHIV community representatives, and WHO regional
and country officers. Declarations of Interests were submitted by group participants.
The work was coordinated by the Antiretroviral, Treatment and HIV Care team of the WHO
Department of HIV/AIDS.
The academic institutions that contributed to writing the guidelines were the Liverpool Medical
School (UK), the South African Medical Research Council / South African Cochrane Centre
(South Africa), the University of California, San Francisco / Cochrane Collaborative Review
group on HIV/AIDS (USA), the University of New South Wales (Australia) and the University of
Bern (Switzerland). Contributions were also received from the US Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), UNAIDS and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Consultations were held with civil society networks including the Global Network of People
Living with HIV (GNP+), the International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITCP) and the
International Community of Women with HIV/AIDS (ICW).
Group processes were managed as follows. The proposed recommendations were considered
separately by the ART Guideline Working and Drafting Groups using a risk-benefit analysis tool
consisting of a table exploring the following domains: existing and proposed recommendations,
evidence for the outcomes deemed critical (mortality, disease progression and serious adverse
events), risks and benefits of implementing the recommendations, acceptability, costs, feasibility,
suggested ranking of recommendations (strong or conditional), gaps and research needs. The
groups placed emphasis on concerns and important outcomes as voiced by PLHIV and on the
critical need to maintain equity, access and coverage.
The draft recommendations, GRADE profiles, risk-benefit analysis tables and supporting data
were circulated to the ART Peer Review Panel for comment before convening the multidisciplinary
ART Guideline Review Committee in October 2009. Following the release of Rapid advice in
November 2009, successive drafts of the full guidelines were prepared and circulated to the ART
Guideline Drafting Group and the external ART Peer Review Panel for comments. All responses
were considered and addressed in the final draft. Disagreements were resolved in discussions.
The guidelines will be disseminated as a paper-based handbook and electronically on the WHO
web site.
Regional and subregional meetings are planned to adapt these global recommendations to
local needs and facilitate implementation.
A plan will be developed to evaluate the implementation of the guidelines by users.
A review of the guidelines is planned for 2012. There will be interim reviews as new evidence
becomes available.

14
Recommendations contained in the 2006 guidelines were based on levels of evidence from
randomized clinical trials (RCTs), scientific studies, observational cohort data and, where
insufficient evidence was available, expert opinion. Each recommendation was rated using the
criteria described in Table 1, the letters A, B, and C representing the strengths of the
recommendations and the numerals I, II, III and IV representing the quality of the evidence. Cost-
effectiveness, acceptability and feasibility were not explicitly considered.
Table 1. Assessment of evidence as used in the 2006 guidelines
Strength of recommendation
Level of evidence to make
for recommendation
A. Recommended − should be followed
B. Consider − applicable in most situations
C. Optional
I. At least one randomized controlled trial
with clinical, laboratory or programmatic
end-points
II. At least one high-quality study or several
adequate studies with clinical, laboratory
or programmatic end-points
III. Observational cohort data, one or more
case-controlled or analytical studies
adequately conducted
IV. Expert opinion based on evaluation of
other evidence
In the 2010 guidelines the development of a recommendation remains guided primarily by the
quality of evidence using GRADE methodology. However, the GRADE approach includes the
additional domains of the balance between risks and benefits, acceptability (values and
preferences), cost and feasibility. Values and preferences may differ in regard to desired
outcomes or there may be uncertainty about whether an intervention represents a wise use of
resources. Furthermore, despite clear benefits, it may not be feasible to implement a proposed
recommendation in some settings.
Table 2. Assessment of strengths of recommendations as used
in the 2010 guidelines
Strength of recommendation Rationale
Strong
The panel is confident that the desirable
effects of adherence to the recommendation
outweigh the undesirable effects.
9. From evidence to recommendation

15
Strength of recommendation Rationale
Conditional
The panel concludes that the desirable
effects of adherence to a recommendation
probably outweigh the undesirable effects.
However:
the recommendation is only applicable to a
specific group, population or setting OR
new evidence may result in changing the
balance of risk to benefit OR
the benefits may not warrant the cost or
resource requirements in all settings.
No recommendation possible
Further research is required before any
recommendation can be made.
In the GRADE approach, the quality of a body of evidence is defined as the extent to which one
can be confident that the reported estimates of effect (desirable or undesirable) available from
the evidence are close to the actual effects of interest. The usefulness of an estimate of the effect
of an intervention depends on the level of confidence in that estimate. The higher the quality of
evidence, the more likely a strong recommendation can be made. It is not always possible to
prepare GRADE profiles for all interventions.
Table 3. Assessment of strength of evidence as used in the 2010 guidelines
Evidence level Rationale
High
Further research is very unlikely to change
confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate
Further research is likely to have an
important impact on confidence in the
effect.
Low
Further research is very likely to have an
estimate of effect and is likely to change the
estimate.
Very low Any estimate of effect is very uncertain.

16
Table 4. Additional domains considered in developing strengths
of recommendations
Domain Rationale
Benefits and risks
When developing a new recommendation, desirable
effects (benefits) need to be weighed against undesirable
effects (risks), considering any previous recommendation
or an alternative. The larger the gap or gradient in favour
of the benefits compared to the risks, the more likely a
strong recommendation will be made.
Values and preferences
(acceptability)
If the recommendation is likely to be widely accepted or
valued more highly, a strong recommendation will
probably be made. If there is a great deal of variability or if
there are strong reasons that the recommended course of
action is unlikely to be accepted, it is more probable that a
conditional recommendation will be made.
Costs / financial implications
(resource use)
Lower costs (monetary, infrastructure, equipment or
human resources), or greater cost-effectiveness will more
probably result in a strong recommendation.
Feasibility
If an intervention is achievable in a setting where the
greatest impact is expected to be attained, a strong
recommendation is more probable. Tools have been
developed to assist national ART advisory committees
when assessing the feasibility of implementing a new
recommendation. These are available at: http://www.who.
int/hiv/topics/treatment/evidence3/en/index.html

17
WHO normative guidelines are developed for a global audience and it is expected that each
country will adapt the recommendations to suit its own circumstances. WHO endorses the use
of a national technical or advisory treatment working group to direct the adaptation process. It
is recognized that the implementation of some recommendations may be challenging in some
settings in view of the differing prevalence of HIV and of limited available and promised
resources. It is recognized that the new recommendations have the potential to increase
substantially the number of people eligible for ART and to increase the cost of delivering ART as
part of comprehensive care. Immediate and full implementation of these recommendations may
not be practicable, feasible or affordable. However, country-level strategic planning should be
directed towards eventually implementing these recommendations and achieving national
universal access to HIV care and treatment. It is recommended that national ART advisory
committees consider the following six guiding principles to direct decision-making when
introducing the revised recommendations.
1. Do no harm
Seek to maintain current progress of treatment programmes without disrupting the care of those
on treatment or compromising PLHIV at highest risk for poor outcomes.
2. Accessibility
Ensure that all clinically eligible people infected with HIV are able to enter treatment services.
3. Quality of care
Ensure that care achieves the highest standards possible.
4. Equity of access
Ensure fairness and justice in access to treatment services.
5. Efficiency in resource use
Aim to achieve the greatest health impact with the optimal use of available human and financial
resources.
6. Sustainability
Understand the long-term consequences of changes and have the vision to provide continued,
lifelong access to ART for those in need.
While the six guiding principles should be used to direct decision-making, contextual issues
must also be taken into consideration, and it is not expected that all national ART advisory
committees will come to the same decisions. It is important to engage stakeholders, including
PLHIV, civil society and health-care workers, in open discussions about how to make choices
and implement changes.
In addition, the following points should be considered.
10. Adapting the guidelines

18
1. Strengthen health systems
In making decisions, priority should be given to interventions that will directly or indirectly
strengthen health systems.
2. Implement in phases
It may not be possible to implement every new recommendation in every setting. A phased
approach may be necessary if only some recommendations can be implemented.
3. Understand the perspectives of PLHIV
The toxicity of d4T is of concern to the majority of PLHIV and its continuing use may undermine
confidence in ART. If d4T has to be included in ongoing regimens, strategies should be devised
to allow for substituting an alternative drug in cases of toxicity. There should be a plan to
eventually avoid the routine use of this drug.
4. Be forward-looking
The WHO guideline Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and adolescents will next
be updated in 2012. Member States should strive to adopt the 2010 recommendations before
that date.
An adaptation guide has been written to accompany these guidelines. WHO recognizes that the
new recommendations will promote significant benefits to HIV-infected individuals, and also that
they have the potential to substantially increase the number of people in need of ART and the
cost of delivering it. Depending on how the new guidelines are implemented or interpreted, they
could also lead to unintended consequences, such as reduced access to those most in need or
the undermining of existing ART coverage or impending ongoing or planned research. The
purpose of the adaptation guide is to assist Member States and programme managers to
choose and prioritize the recommendations, especially where resources are limited. In addition,
the guide is intended to serve as an advocacy tool for policy-makers and to provide a basis for
difficult choices and decisions in Member States. The adaptation guide is available at:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/treatment/guide_for_adaptation.pdf.
To further assist countries, programme managers, academic institutions and national ART
advisory committees to adapt these new recommendations to their local circumstances, the
following materials are available on the WHO main evidence map web page. http://www.who.int/
hiv/topics/treatment/evidence3/en/index.html.

19
Earlier initiation of ART
On the basis of the available evidence the panel recommended ART initiation for all PLHIV with
a CD4 count of ≤350 cells/mm3 and for those with WHO clinical stage 3 or 4 if CD4 testing is not
available.
Simplified, less toxic antiretroviral drugs for use in first-line and second-line therapy
While current options have permitted rapid ART scale-up, the cost in terms of side-effects has
been considerable. There is a clear demand both from PLHIV and health-care providers to
phase in less toxic ARVs while maintaining simplified fixed-dose combinations. The available
evidence indicates that initial ART should contain an NNRTI (either NVP or EFV) plus two NRTIs,
one of which should be 3TC or FTC and the other AZT or TDF. Countries are advised to choose
one second-line regimen for individuals with first-line failure.
Promoting the initiation of ART for all those with HIV/TB coinfection
While recognizing that this recommendation will be challenging for many countries with a
significant HIV and TB burden, the panel placed high value on reducing the impact of TB on
societies and on the data demonstrating a reduction in all-cause mortality among individuals
provided with TB therapy and ART.
Promoting improved HBV diagnosis and more effective treatment
of HIV/HBV coinfection
Evidence supports the initiation of ART, irrespective of WHO disease stage or CD4 cell count, for
all those with HIV/HBV coinfection and chronic active hepatitis B when treatment is indicated for
hepatitis B. However, there is no agreed definition of chronic active hepatitis in resource-limited
settings. Despite this, the panel felt that it was necessary to include the principles of optimum
care for those with HIV/HBV coinfection and bring these into alignment with recommendations in
well-resourced settings. There is an urgent need to develop diagnostic criteria to identify
individuals with HIV/HBV coinfection who need treatment in situations where HBV DNA and liver
biopsy are not routinely available.
More strategic monitoring for antiretroviral efficacy and toxicity
While laboratory monitoring should not be a barrier to initiating ART, the newly recommended
ARV regimens may require more laboratory monitoring than current regimens, especially in
individuals at higher risk for adverse events. A phased-in approach to the use of viral load
testing, if feasible, will improve the identification of treatment failure.
11. Summary of changes

20
When to start
All adolescents and adults including pregnant women with HIV
infection and CD4 counts of ≤350 cells/mm3, should start ART,
regardless of the presence or absence of clinical symptoms.
Those with severe or advanced clinical disease (WHO clinical
stage 3 or 4) should start ART irrespective of their CD4 cell count.
What to use in first-
line therapy
First-line therapy should consist of an NNRTI + two NRTIs, one of
which should be zidovudine (AZT) or tenofovir (TDF). Countries
should take steps to progressively reduce the use of stavudine
(d4T) in first-line regimens because of its well-recognized
toxicities.
What to use in
second-line therapy
Second-line ART should consist of a ritonavir-boosted protease
inhibitor (PI) plus two NRTIs, one of which should be AZT or TDF,
based on what was used in first-line therapy. Ritonavir-boosted
atazanavir (ATV/r) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) are the preferred
PIs.
Laboratory
monitoring
All patients should have access to CD4 cell–count testing to
optimize pre-ART care and ART management. HIVRNA (viral-load)
testing is recommended to confirm suspected treatment failure.
Drug toxicity monitoring should be symptom-directed.
HIV/TB coinfection
Irrespective of CD4 cell counts, patients coinfected with HIV and
TB should be started on ART as soon as possible after starting TB
treatment.
HIV/HBV coinfection
Irrespective of CD4 cell counts or WHO clinical stage, patients
who require treatment for HBV infection should start ART. First-line
and second-line regimens for these individuals should contain
TDF and either emtricitabine (FTC) or lamivudine (3TC).
12. Recommendations at a glance

21
Table 5. When to start antiretroviral therapy
Target population 2010 ART guideline 2006 ART guideline
HIV+ asymptomatic
ARV-naive individuals
CD4 ≤350 cells/mm3 CD4 ≤200 cells/mm3
HIV+ symptomatic
WHO clinical stage 2 if CD4
≤350 cells/mm3 OR
WHO clinical stage 3 or 4
irrespective of CD4 cell
count
WHO stage 2 or 3 and
CD4 ≤200 cells/mm3
WHO stage 3 if CD4 not
available
WHO stage 4 irrespective
of CD4 cell count
Consider treatment for WHO
clinical stage 3 and CD4 cell
count between 200 and 350
cells/mm3
HIV+ pregnant women
irrespective of clinical
symptoms OR
irrespective of CD4 cell count
WHO stage 1 or 2 and
WHO stage 3 and
CD4 ≤350 cells/ mm3
WHO stage 4 irrespective
of CD4 count
HIV/TB coinfection
Presence of active TB
disease, irrespective of
CD4 cell count
Presence of active TB
disease and CD4 ≤350
cells/mm3
ART Initiation can be delayed
if CD4 ≥200 cells/mm3
HIV/HBV coinfection
Individuals who require
treatment for their HBV
infection*, irrespective of
CD4 cell count
No specific
recommendation
* The current diagnosis of chronic active hepatitis in well-resourced settings is based on histological parameters
obtained by liver biopsy and/or the availability of HBV DNA testing, neither of which is usually available in
resource-limited settings. A global definition of chronic active hepatitis in the context of resource-limited settings
based on clinical signs and simpler laboratory parameters is under discussion.

22
Table 6. What antiretroviral therapy to start
Target
population
2010 ART guideline
2006 ART
guideline
HIV+ ARV-naive
adults and
adolescents
No change, but in settings where d4T regimens are
used as the principal option for starting ART a
progressive plan to move towards AZT-based or
TDF-based first-line regimens should be developed,
based on an assessment of cost and feasibility
AZT or TDF
+ 3TC (or FTC)
+ EFV or NVP
HIV+ pregnant
women
AZT preferred but TDF acceptable
EFV included as a NNRTI option (but do not initiate
EFV during first trimester)
Benefits of NVP outweigh risks where CD4 count is
250−350 cells/mm3
In HIV+ women with prior exposure to MTCT
regimens, see ART recommendations in section 13.2
AZT + 3TC
+ NVP
HIV/TB
coinfection
No change
ART should be initiated as soon as possible in all
HIV/TB-coinfected patients with active TB (within
8 weeks after the start of TB treatment)
AZT or TDF
+ 3TC (or FTC)
+ EFV
HIV/HBV
coinfection
NNRTI regimens that contain both TDF + 3TC
(or FTC) are required
TDF + 3TC
(or FTC) + EFV
Table7. Recommended second-line antiretroviral therapy
Target
population
2010 ART guideline*
2006 ART
guideline
HIV+ adults and
adolescents
If d4T or AZT used in
first-line therapy
TDF + 3TC (or FTC) +
ATV/r or LPV/r
ABC + ddI or
TDF+ ABC or
ddI +3TC or
TDF + 3TC
(± AZT) plus
ATV/r or FPV/r
or IDV/r or LPV/r
or SQV/r
If TDF used in
first-line therapy
AZT + 3TC (or FTC) +
ATV/r or LPV/r

23
Target
population
2010 ART guideline*
2006 ART
guideline
HIV+ pregnant
women
Same regimens as recommended for adults
and adolescents
ABC + ddI or
TDF+ ABC or
ddI +3TC or
TDF + 3TC
(± AZT)
plus LPV/r or
NFV or SQV/r
HIV/TB
coinfection
If rifabutin available
(150 mg 3 times/
week)
Same regimens as
recommended for adults
ABC + ddI or
TDF+ ABC or
ddI +3TC or
TDF + 3TC
(± AZT) plus
LPV/r or SQV/r
with adjusted
dose of RTV
(LPV/r 400
mg/400 mg
twice a day
or LPV/r 800
mg/200 mg
twice a day
or SQV/r 400
mg/400 mg
twice a day)
If rifabutin not
available
Same NRTI backbones
plus LPV/r or SQV/r with
adjusted dose of RTV
(LPV/r 400 mg/400 mg
twice a day or LPV/r 800
mg/200 mg twice a day or
SQV/r 400 mg/400 mg
twice a day)
HIV/HBV
coinfection
AZT + TDF + 3TC (or FTC) + ATV/r or LPV/r
3TC- and/or
TDF-containing
regimens
* ABC and ddI can be considered as backup options in case of AZT or TDF toxicity or if AZT or TDF are
contraindicated.

24
13.1. Recommendations
1. It is recommended to treat all patients with CD4 counts of ≤350 cells/mm3 irrespective of
the WHO clinical stage.
(Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence)
2. It is recommended that all patients with WHO clinical stage 1 and 2 should have access
to CD4 testing to decide when to initiate treatment.
(Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence)
3. It is recommended to treat all patients with WHO clinical stage 3 and 4 irrespective of
CD4 count.
In making these recommendations, the ART Guideline Review Committee (the “panel”) placed
high value on avoiding death, disease progression and the likely risk of HIV transmission over
and above cost and feasibility.
13.2. Evidence
The evidence used in formulating recommendations on when to start ART comes from a
systematic review: Optimal time of initiation of antiretroviral therapy for asymptomatic, HIV-
infected, treatment-naive adults.(2) The review included randomized controlled clinical trials
(RCTs) and cohort studies, in which ART initiation was stratified according to CD4 cell count. On
the basis of GRADE methodology, the evidence was rated for each of the critical and important
outcomes to determine whether or not to change the current WHO guideline.
The recommendations are supported by moderate quality evidence for critical patient and public
health outcomes from one unpublished RCT and one post hoc analysis nested in an RCT. In the
GRADE evidence profile, pooled data from these two studies provide moderate evidence that
starting ART at CD4 levels higher than 200 or 250 cells/mm3 reduces mortality rates in
asymptomatic, ART-naive, HIV-infected people. The panel also reviewed large observational
data sets from both resource-limited and well-resourced settings that were consistent with data
from the RCT, but these did not add to the overall quality of evidence. The panel considered the
recommendations to be feasible if introduced in a phased manner, with the speed and
completeness determined by health-system capacity, HIV burden, ART coverage, equity of
access and funding.
Recent modelling and observational data suggest that more than 50% of HIV-infected patients
with WHO clinical stage 2 may have a CD4 count of ≤350 cells/mm3. However, considering the
uncertain prognostic value of some WHO clinical stage 2 conditions, the panel recommended
that HIV-infected individuals with WHO clinical stage 1 and 2 should have access to CD4 testing
to decide if treatment should be initiated.
13. When to start

25
13.3. Summary of findings
Moderate-quality evidence supports strong recommendations for the timing of ART initiation for
the critical outcomes of absolute risk of death, disease progression (including tuberculosis), and
the occurrence of serious adverse events.
One RCT specifically aimed to determine the optimal time to initiate ART in asymptomatic,
treatment-naive, HIV-infected adults. The CIPRA HT-001 (2009) study, a single-centre trial in
Haiti, randomized 816 ART-naive participants with a CD4 count of 200−350 cells/mm3, to receive
early treatment (start ART within 2 weeks of enrolment) versus standard-of-care treatment (start
ART when the CD4 count is <200 cells/mm3 or following the development of an AIDS-defining
illness).(3) The median CD4 count at study entry was 280 cells/mm3 in the early treatment group
and 282 cells/mm3 in the standard-of-care group. The primary study end-point was survival and
the secondary end-point was incident TB. The Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB)
recommended cessation of the study after a median follow up of 21 months (1−44 months).
Deaths and incident TB occurred in 6 and 18 patients respectively in the early group compared
to 23 and 36 patients in the delayed group (mortality HR 4.0, p = 0.0011; incident TB HR 2.0,
p = 0.0125). Of the participants in the standard-of-care group, 40% reached a CD4 cell count of
<200 cells/ mm3, developed an AIDS-defining illness or died.
Early ART initiation was examined further in one subgroup post hoc analysis (249 participants)
nested in a larger RCT. The SMART trial was a multicentre study conducted at 318 sites in
33 high-income and low/middle-income countries, which randomized 5472 participants with
CD4 cell counts of >350 cells/mm3 to either a viral suppression strategy (goal of maximal and
continuous viral suppression) versus a drug conservation strategy (ART deferred until CD4 was
<250 cells/mm3).(4) In a subset analysis of 477 patients who were ART-naive at study entry
(n = 249) or who had not received ART for >6 months before randomization (n = 228) and who
were randomized to start ART immediately (with CD4 of >350 cells/mm3) or delayed until after
CD4 dropped to <250 cells/mm3, there was a reduction of disease progression and serious
non-AIDS events when ART was initiated before the CD4 cell count dropped to ≤350 cells/mm3
compared with delaying until the CD4 count was <250 cells/mm3.
In the GRADE profile, pooled data from this RCT and the subgroup post hoc analysis provided
moderate evidence that starting ART at CD4 levels higher than 200 or 250 cells/mm3 reduced
mortality rates in asymptomatic, ART-naive HIV-infected people. Evidence regarding a reduction
in morbidity was less strong because there were few events. The numbers of adverse events
were also small.
As the CIPRA-HT001 2009 trial was conducted in a resource-limited setting, the applicability of
these results in determining a change in WHO guidelines is high.
The GRADE profile notes that the quality of these data was limited by imprecision (there was only
one RCT), indirectness (the SMART data come from a post hoc subset analysis) and reporting
bias (there may be other trials which did not conduct or publish similar analyses of potential
subsets within the original trials).

26
The results from the CIPRA HT-001 and SMART trials are consistent with four observational
cohort studies from resource-limited and well-resourced countries, which showed that early
initiation of ART was associated with reduced morbidity and mortality.(5−8) GRADE tables were
not produced for the four observational studies identified in the systematic review as they would
not have increased the overall quality of evidence. No trials were identified which evaluated the
optimal timing of initiation of ART in people coinfected with hepatitis B, hepatitis C or both.
13.4. Benefits and risks
Benefits
Modelling estimates predict that the initiation of ART for individuals with a CD4 cell count of ≤350
cells/mm3 or with WHO clinical stage 3 or 4 will result in the numbers of people on ART increasing
by 49% and a reduction in HIV-related mortality of 20% by 2010−2015.(9) Further modelling data
suggest additional transmission benefit from earlier initiation of ART for both sexual transmission
and MTCT of HIV providing that there is high treatment coverage and high adherence.(10) Earlier
initiation and more time spent on ART may provide impetus to shift to less toxic first-line regimens
and reduced prices for newer fixed-dose combinations (FDCs).
Observational and RCT data confirm that there is an increased risk of TB and invasive bacterial
diseases as CD4 cell counts decline.(11,12) Conversely, there is a 54% to 92% reduction in TB in
individuals receiving ART.(13)
Risks
It is estimated that increasing the threshold for ART initiation can increase ART cost up to 57%
by 2010−2015.(9) Broadening the criteria for treatment may result in some persons in urgent
need of treatment being displaced by persons for whom treatment would be beneficial but not
as urgent. In recommending a higher CD4 count threshold for initiation, a guiding principle is
that those most in need of treatment should retain priority access.
Earlier initiation will mean longer exposure to ART (estimated to be 1 to 2 years more) and the
possibility of more ART-related side-effects and ARV resistance. It remains unclear if
asymptomatic individuals will accept HIV testing or ART. Additionally, the impact of earlier
initiation on adherence is uncertain.
13.5. Acceptability and feasibility
In consultations with PLHIV, the benefits of starting ART earlier were recognized and strongly
supported. However, concern was voiced about the increased risk of adverse events, resistance
to first-line ARVs, drug stock-outs, and unavailability of second-line regimens. While earlier ART
initiation will reduce the current disparity between treatment recommendations in resource-limited
and well-resourced settings, it will appear to decrease treatment coverage. Ministries and donors
may feel under pressure to address immediate increased costs. Feasibility will be enhanced if
there is a phased introduction of the higher thresholds, with the speed and completeness
determined by the health system’s capacity, HIV burden, ART coverage and funding.

27
13.6. Clinical considerations
Table 8. WHO clinical staging of HIV disease in adults and adolescents
Clinical stage 1
Asymptomatic
Persistent generalized lymphadenopathy
Clinical stage 2
Moderate unexplained weight loss (under 10% of presumed or measured body weight)
Recurrent respiratory tract infections (sinusitis, tonsillitis, otitis media, pharyngitis)
Herpes zoster
Angular cheilitis
Recurrent oral ulcerations
Papular pruritic eruptions
Seborrhoeic dermatitis
Fungal nail infections
Clinical stage 3
Unexplained severe weight loss (over 10% of presumed or measured body weight)
Unexplained chronic diarrhoea for longer than 1 month
Unexplained persistent fever (intermittent or constant for longer than 1 month)
Persistent oral candidiasis
Oral hairy leukoplakia
Pulmonary tuberculosis
Severe bacterial infections (e.g. pneumonia, empyema, meningitis, pyomyositis, bone or
joint infection, bacteraemia, severe pelvic inflammatory disease)
Acute necrotizing ulcerative stomatitis, gingivitis or periodontitis
Unexplained anaemia (below 8 g/dl ), neutropenia (below 0.5 x 109/l) and/or chronic
thrombocytopenia (below 50 x 109/l)

28
Clinical stage 4
HIV wasting syndrome
Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia
Recurrent severe bacterial pneumonia
Chronic herpes simplex infection (orolabial, genital or anorectal of more than 1 month’s
duration or visceral at any site)
Oesophageal candidiasis (or candidiasis of trachea, bronchi or lungs)
Extrapulmonary tuberculosis
Kaposi sarcoma
Cytomegalovirus disease (retinitis or infection of other organs, excluding liver, spleen and
lymph nodes)
Central nervous system toxoplasmosis
HIV encephalopathy
Extrapulmonary cryptococcosis including meningitis
Disseminated nontuberculous mycobacteria infection
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Chronic cryptosporidiosis
Chronic isosporiasis
Disseminated mycosis (histoplasmosis, coccidiomycosis)
Recurrent septicaemia (including nontyphoidal Salmonella)
Lymphoma (cerebral or B cell non-Hodgkin)
Invasive cervical carcinoma
Atypical disseminated leishmaniasis
Symptomatic HIV-associated nephropathy or HIV-associated cardiomyopathy
Source: Revised WHO clinical staging and immunological classification of HIV and case definition of HIV for
surveillance. 2006.

29
Table 9. Criteria for ART Initiation in specific populations
Target population Clinical condition Recommendation
Asymptomatic individuals
(including pregnant
women)
WHO clinical stage 1 Start ART if CD4 ≤350
Symptomatic individuals
(including pregnant
women)
WHO clinical stage 2 Start ART if CD4 ≤350
Start ART irrespective of
CD4 cell count
TB and hepatitis B
coinfections
Active TB disease
CD4 cell count
HBV infection requiring
treatment*
CD4 cell count
* The current standard definition of chronic active hepatitis in industrialized countries is mainly based on
histological parameters obtained by liver biopsy, a procedure not usually available in the large majority of
resource-limited settings. A global definition of chronic active hepatitis for resource-limited settings based on
clinical and more simple laboratory parameters is under discussion.
While increased access to CD4 testing is a priority, the lack of a CD4 cell count should not be a
barrier to the initiation of ART. For ART programmes in many countries with the highest HIV
burden, clinical criteria remain the basis for deciding when to initiate ART. In both resource-
limited and well-resourced settings, there is a move towards earlier initiation of ART. However,
many people still present for the first time with advanced HIV disease, with a CD4 count of <200
cells/mm3 or with an opportunistic infection.(14,15)
Clinical assessment
Clinical staging is intended for use where HIV infection has been confirmed by HIV antibody
testing. It is used to guide decisions on when to start cotrimoxazole prophylaxis and when to
start ART. Table 8 (WHO clinical staging of HIV disease in adults and adolescents) and Annex
21.5 (Diagnostic criteria for HIV-related clinical events in adults and adolescents) provide details
of specific staging conditions and the criteria for recognizing them.
For individuals with advanced HIV disease (WHO clinical stage 3 or 4), ART should be initiated
irrespective of the CD4 cell count. Both stages 3 and 4 are independently predictive of HIV-
related mortality.(16−19) Assessing the need for ART in those with WHO clinical stage 2 presents
challenges. Some stage 2 conditions may be considered more indicative of HIV disease
progression than others. For example, papular pruritic eruptions (PPEs) typically occur with CD4
counts of <200 cells/mm3, and most physicians would recommend the initiation of ART in the
presence of PPEs and the absence of a CD4 count.(20,21) Conversely, recurrent oral ulceration
or a fungal nail infection generally would not be considered triggers to start ART. Given the
uncertainty with which stage 2 conditions predict mortality and disease progression, HIV-

30
infected individuals with WHO clinical stage 2 should have priority access to CD4 testing to
decide if treatment should be initiated. The same recommendation to promote CD4 testing
applies to asymptomatic individuals (WHO stage 1). The objective is to identify those with a low
CD4 count, are still well, but need to start ART.
Immunological assessment
Expanded provider-initiated testing and counselling (PITC) and voluntary counselling and testing
(VCT), together with immunological assessment (CD4 testing), are critical to achieving the goals
of earlier diagnosis and starting ART before people become unwell or present with their first
opportunistic infection.(22) A CD4 cell count performed at entry into care or prior to ART initiation
will guide the decision on when to start ART and serves as the baseline if CD4 testing is used for
ART monitoring. ART should be commenced in individuals with a CD4 count of ≤350 cells/mm3.
Absolute CD4 cell counts fluctuate within individuals and with intercurrent illnesses. If feasible,
CD4 testing should be repeated if a major management decision rests on the value, rather than
using a single value. Serial CD4 measurements are more informative than individual values
because they reflect trends over time. The total lymphocyte count (TLC) is no longer
recommended to guide treatment decisions in adults and adolescents.
Virological assessment
In resource-limited settings, plasma viral load (HIVRNA) measurement is not required before the
initiation of ART. However, expanded access to viral load testing is needed to improve the accuracy
of diagnosing treatment failure. Earlier detection of virological failure allows both targeted
adherence interventions and better preservation of the efficacy of second-line regimens.(23)

31
Start one of the following regimens in ART-naive individuals eligible for treatment.
• AZT + 3TC + EFV
• AZT + 3TC + NVP
• TDF + 3TC (or FTC) + EFV
• TDF + 3TC (or FTC) + NVP
Because stavudine (d4T) is relatively inexpensive and is currently a component of first-line
therapy in many countries, the panel specifically considered studies of d4T-based regimens. In
making these recommendations, the panel placed high value on avoiding the disfiguring,
unpleasant and potentially life-threatening toxicity of d4T, in addition to the selection of regimens
suitable for use in most patient groups, treatment durability and the benefits of using fixed-dose
combinations. The available information suggests that abacavir (ABC) and didanosine (ddI)
have serious constraints for use in first-line regimens (toxicities and cost) and the panel focused
on comparisons between AZT, TDF and d4T-based regimens.
14.2. Evidence
Using Cochrane systematic review methodology, triple-drug ARVs for the initial treatment of HIV
infection were examined in RCTS, other controlled trials, and cohort and case-control studies.
The comparisons of interest were mortality, disease progression, virological response to ART
(the proportion of individuals who suppressed viral replication to undetectable levels, defined as
<40, <400 or <500 copies/ml), serious adverse events (Division of AIDS adverse event toxicity
scale, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, USA, 2004), adherence, tolerability
and retention, and immunological response to ART (median or mean change in CD4 cell count
from baseline). The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE evidence profiles.
The following specific interventions were compared:
• dual NRTI backbone with d4T versus dual NRTI backbone with AZT;
• dual NRTI backbone with TDF versus dual NRTI backbone with AZT or d4T;
• 2 NRTIs + NVP versus 2 NRTIs + EFV.
Current evidence suggests that the new recommended regimens are comparable in terms of
efficacy, with a better overall toxicity profile than d4T-based regimens. The panel was reassured
by the GRADE evidence profile from RCTs, non-randomized trials and observational studies
from low-income and middle-income countries, which indicate no superiority for the outcomes
of interest of AZT over TDF, or of NVP over EFV as part of combination ART for treatment-naive
individuals.
14. What to start

32
14.3. Summary of main findings
This systematic review did not find any evidence from RCTs, non-randomized trials or
observational studies from resource-limited settings that clearly indicated the superiority of
regimens based on AZT, d4T or TDF or the superiority of either EFV or NVP, in triple-drug
antiretroviral regimens for treatment-naive patients.
Studies which compared or are comparing AZT and d4T in different combinations provide
reasonably robust evidence that AZT-containing and d4T-containing regimens are equivalent.
(24−33) These studies have a variety of limitations and the overall GRADE evidence profile
rating was very low. Five of the six studies were open-label, several studies compared AZT +
3TC to d4T + ddI, potentially obscuring the head-to-head comparison of AZT and d4T, and
others used protease inhibitors as a third drug. The Adult Antiretroviral Treatment and Resistance
Study (TSHEPO study) in Botswana is directly comparing combinations of AZT + 3TC + NVP or
EFV and d4T + 3TC + NVP or EFV.(34)
Three RCTs have compared regimens containing TDF to d4T or AZT. Two of these studies used
3TC as the second NRTI and allowed for direct comparisons (35,36); the third compared AZT +
3TC with TDF + FTC.(37) Two of these studies had equivalent findings; that efficacy and safety
were similar for AZT + 3TC + EFV and d4T + 3TC + EFV, and for TDF + FTC + EFV and TDF
+ 3TC + EFV. (35,36)
The third study compared TDF + 3TC to AZT +3TC, both with once-daily NVP, and was
prematurely discontinued after failure of the TDF + 3TC + NVP arm to suppress viral replication
in 8 of 35 participants(35,36). In two other small studies, similar rates of failure to suppress viral
replication have also been found in patients receiving NVP once daily.(38,39) However, in the
large ARTEN study, (atazanavir/ritonavir on a background of tenofovir and emtricitabine vs.
nevirapine) in which 569 patients were randomized to receive NVP 200 mg BID, NVP 400 mg OD
or ATV /r 300/100mg OD each given with TDF/FTC OD, non-inferiority of the primary end-point
(undetectable VL at week 48) was established between the combined NVP arms and ATV/r arm.
(40)
Data from AIDS therapy evaluation in the Netherlands (ATHENA) and Swiss HIV cohort study
(4471 on NVP twice-daily and 629 on NVP once-daily regimens) suggest that NVP once daily is
at least as efficient as NVP prescribed twice daily.(41)
Additional evidence comes from observational studies which were not included in the GRADE
profile. None were conducted in low-income and middle-income settings. These studies showed
that TDF-containing backbones were associated with a higher proportion of non-detectable
viraemia,(42) a lower rate change due to toxicity,(43) overall greater durability (44) and slower
rates of CD4-cell increase.(45,46) Two observational studies reported that TDF/FTC or 3TC was
cost-saving compared to AZT+3TC.(47,48)
Six RCTs which have compared NVP to EFV found no differences in efficacy.(49−54) One RCT
reported that EFV was less likely than NVP to be associated with the development of antiretroviral
resistance.(53) The GRADE evidence profile is moderate to high, with the exception of drug

33
resistance, which was examined in only a single study. Ongoing studies will add substantially to
this literature.(55−57)
The systematic review of d4T safety and toxicity prepared for this guideline revision reported
data from three RCTs and 24 observational studies, demonstrating the consistent association
between d4T and peripheral neuropathy, lipoatrophy and lactic acidosis.
Benefits
Phasing in AZT and TDF will reduce the risk of acute d4T-related lactic acidosis and of long-term
mitochondrial toxicities (particularly lipoatrophy and peripheral neuropathy), and has the
potential for improved adherence and reduced lost to follow-up. TDF can be included in a once-
daily FDC. The combination of TDF + 3TC or FTC is the recommended NRTI backbone in the
presence of HBV coinfection. AZT + 3TC is a preferred NRTI backbone option in pregnant
woman. There will be fewer within-class changes with more durable and safer regimens.
Risks
AZT and TDF may require more laboratory monitoring than d4T-based regimens. There may be
concern from PLHIV and care providers about anaemia (AZT) and renal toxicity (TDF). There is
uncertainty whether TDF requires renal screening and monitoring in all individuals or only in
selected populations (elderly, those with low body weight, those taking concomitant renal toxic
drugs or with diseases such as diabetes and hypertension). TDF has been reported as
associated with bone mineral loss.(58) Recently, safety and effectiveness in adolescents was
reviewed; individuals aged ≥12 years and weighing ≥35 kg should use the dose recommended
in adults.(58) In addition to anaemia, AZT is associated with initial gastrointestinal adverse
events, proximal myopathy and skin hyperpigmentation. Not all of these options are currently
available as a full FDC (AZT + 3TC + EFV; TDF + 3TC + NVP; TDF + FTC + NVP).
While progressive reduction in the use of d4T is occurring, it may be retained as an interim
measure if plans are initiated to monitor and manage toxicity. In certain situations, d4T may be
retained as a backup drug, such as when TDF and AZT are contraindicated.
As current evidence suggests that the recommended regimens are comparable in terms of
efficacy, countries should select one of them as the preferred option for most patients initiating
ART, on the basis of factors related to acceptability and feasibility, such as:
• numbers of individuals needing to start ART according to 2010 and 2015 targets;
• numbers of individuals starting ART who have HIV/TB coinfection or chronic active
HIV/HBV coinfection;
• anaemia (due to malaria, malnutrition, intestinal parasites, repeated pregnancies or other
causes);
• pregnant women or women of reproductive age;

34
• predicted expenditure per person needing ART (based on selected national start criteria);
• availability of FDC;
• in-country cost of the drug regimens;
• decisions by countries on laboratory requirements to monitor toxicities;
• training needs for the introduction and management of the regimens;
• countries may need to use modelling to assist in decision-making.
Table 10. Preferred first-line ART in treatment-naive adults and adolescents
Target
population
Preferred options Comments
Adults and
adolescents
AZT or TDF + 3TC or
FTC + EFV or NVP
Select the preferred regimens applicable to the
majority of PLHIV
Use fixed-dose combinations
Pregnant
women
AZT + 3TC + EFV or
NVP
Do not initiate EFV during first trimester
TDF acceptable option
In HIV women with prior exposure to PMTCT
regimens, see ART recommendations in Table 11
HIV/TB
coinfection
AZT or TDF + 3TC or
FTC + EFV
Initiate ART as soon as possible (within the first 8
weeks) after starting TB treatment
NVP or triple NRTIs are acceptable options if EFV
cannot be used
HIV/HBV
coinfection
TDF + 3TC or FTC +
EFV or NVP
Consider HBsAg screening before starting ART,
especially when TDF is not the preferred
first-line NRTI
Use of two ARVs with anti-HBV activity required
14.6. The choice between NVP and EFV
NVP and EFV have comparable clinical efficacy when administered in combination regimens.
However, differences in toxicity profiles, the potential for interaction with other treatments, and
cost should be considered when an NNRTI is being chosen.(54,59)
NVP is associated with a higher incidence of rash, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and hepatotoxicity
compared to EFV.(54) The simultaneous initiation of NVP and other new drugs that can also
cause rash (e.g. cotrimoxazole) should be avoided where possible. In the case of severe hepatic
or skin reactions, NVP should be permanently discontinued and not restarted. NVP is the

35
preferred NNRTI for women if there is potential for pregnancy or during the first trimester of
pregnancy. While there are conflicting data regarding an increased risk of hepatic toxicity in
women with CD4 counts between 250 and 350 cells/mm3, the panel found that there was limited
evidence to cause concern but still urged caution in the use of NVP in women with CD4 counts
of >250 cells/mm3 or in those with unknown CD4 cell counts. Close clinical monitoring (and
laboratory monitoring if feasible) during the first 12 weeks of therapy is recommended when NVP
is initiated in women with a CD4 cell count of 250−350 cells/mm3.
EFV can be used once daily, is generally well tolerated but is more costly and currently less
widely available than NVP. Its primary toxicities are related to the central nervous system (CNS)
and possible, but not proven teratogenicity, if received during the first trimester of pregnancy
(but not in the second and third trimesters), and rash. Rash is generally mild and self-resolving
and usually does not require the discontinuation of therapy. The CNS symptoms are common.
While they typically resolve after 2−4 weeks, they can persist for months, resulting in
discontinuation of the drug. EFV should be avoided in patients with a history of severe psychiatric
illness, when there is a potential for pregnancy (unless effective contraception can be assured)
and during the first trimester of pregnancy. EFV is the NNRTI of choice in individuals with TB/HIV
coinfection who are receiving rifampicin-based TB therapy.
There are clinical situations when individuals need to replace EFV with NVP. The most common
scenarios are when patients temporarily change from NVP to EFV because they need to take
rifampicin-containing TB treatment and subsequently switch back to NVP on completion of TB
treatment, and individuals with persistent EFV CNS intolerance. In this case, EFV can be stopped
and full-dose NVP (200 mg twice daily) can be started immediately. There is no need for lead-in
NVP dosing.(60,61)
14.7. AZT + 3TC + EFV option
In recommending this as a preferred first-line regimen, the panel placed high value on the utility
of EFV in the treatment of HIV/TB coinfection.
Efficacy and safety
Low (for AZT) to moderate (for EFV) GRADE evidence profiles for the critical outcomes of
mortality, clinical progression and serious adverse events support this option.
In the systematic review of AZT toxicity, low body mass and low CD4 cell count were independent
predicators of developing AZT-induced anaemia.(62,63) Background rates of anaemia vary
considerably. Malaria, pregnancy, malnutrition and advanced HIV disease are well-recognized
risk factors for anaemia. The prevalence, incidence and predictors of severe anaemia with AZT-
containing regimens in African adults were assessed in the Development of antiretroviral therapy
in Africa (DART) trial.(63) More than 6% of individuals receiving AZT developed grade 4 (ACTG
toxicity grading scale) anaemia by 12 months. In data from nine PEPFAR focus countries, 12%
stopped AZT because of anaemia or gastrointestinal intolerance.(64) In Uganda, 25% of 1029
patients who initiated a d4T-containing ART were switched to AZT because of d4T toxicity,(65)
and 5% subsequently switched to another drug because of AZT toxicity.

36
The EFV toxicity review showed consistent reports of self-limiting or tolerable CNS adverse
events and uncertainties about teratogenic risk in humans. In the important outcome (as distinct
from the predetermined critical outcomes of mortality, disease progression and adverse events)
of ARV resistance, EFV may be superior to NVP.(66)
EFV should not be initiated in the first trimester of pregnancy but may be initiated in the second
and third trimesters. There is conflicting evidence of very low quality on the risks of EFV causing
neural tube defects. The overall rates of birth defects reported in association with EFV, NVP, LPV/r
or TDF appear similar and are consistent with rates reported in congenital defects registries from
general populations. However, neural tube birth defects are rare, with an incidence 0.1% in the
general population. Prospective data are currently insufficient to provide an assessment of neural
tube defect risk with first-trimester exposure, except to rule out a potential tenfold or higher increase
in risk (i.e. an increase in risk from 0.1% to >1%). Since neural tube closure occurs by approximately
28 days of gestation and very few pregnancies are recognized by this time, the potential risk with
the use of EFV in women who might conceive while receiving the drug is difficult to estimate.
Women who are planning to become pregnant or who may become pregnant should use a
regimen that does not include EFV, in order to avoid the highest risk period of exposure in utero
(conception to day 28 of gestation). If a woman is diagnosed as pregnant before 28 days of
gestation, EFV should be stopped and substituted with NVP or a PI. If a woman is diagnosed as
pregnant after 28 days of gestation, EFV should be continued. There is no indication for termination
of pregnancy in women exposed to EFV in the first trimester of pregnancy.
Risk, benefits and acceptability
AZT requires twice daily dosing and currently there is no AZT-containing triple-drug FDC (a dual
FDC containing AZT + 3TC is available).
Potentially troublesome AZT toxicities, such as proximal myopathy, gastrointestinal intolerance,
skin hyperpigmentation and lipodystrophy, are not uncommon.
EFV is preferred in individuals taking rifampicin-containing TB treatment. EFV is not approved in
children under 3 years of age (and there are insufficient data on appropriate dosing for that age
group). Recent single-dose NVP for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT)
may compromise response to EFV because of cross-resistance. EFV is associated with CNS
adverse events, which are common.
14.8. AZT + 3TC + NVP option
In recommending this as a preferred first-line regimen, the panel placed high value on it as the
preferred option in pregnancy. It is widely available, there is extensive experience in its use and
the cost is lower than an EFV-containing regimen.
Efficacy and safety
NVP may be inferior to EFV in the important, noncritical outcome of ARV resistance (as distinct
from the predetermined critical outcomes of mortality, disease progression and serious adverse
events).(53) Based on safety concerns raised in some of these studies, the US FDA has cautioned

37
against the use of NVP in women with high CD4 cell counts. This current review of NVP safety in
women with CD4 counts of 250−350 cells/mm3 did not confirm an increased risk of serious
adverse events. Available evidence is based largely on retrospective reviews or open-label studies,
with one RCT and two post hoc analyses within an RCT (2NN study) informing the evidence profile.
(54,67) The data are conflicting, with increased rates of hepatotoxicity and hypersensitivity
reported in some studies (54,67−72) and not in others.(73−80) Two of these trials were in pregnant
women. Other studies reported no difference in adverse events between those with low and high
CD4 cell counts in virologically suppressed patients switching to NVP.(76,81,82) These studies
support the concept that a suppressed viral load is a protective factor for NVP-related
hypersensitivity in the situation where patients need to switch from an EFV-based (or PI-based)
regimen to NVP. While there is a good representation of studies in resource-limited settings, the
key recommendation regarding cautious use of NVP in the presence of higher CD4 cell counts is
from high-income and middle-income settings.(54) An increased risk of hypersensitivity and
hepatoxicity has been reported in men with a CD4 count of >400 cells/mm3.(83)
The panel found that there was limited evidence to cause concern about the use of NVP in
women with CD4 counts of 250−350 cells/mm3 but urged caution in the use of NVP in women
with CD4 counts of >250 cells/mm3 or in those with unknown CD4 cell counts. The panel
concluded that the benefits of using NVP in this situation outweigh the risks of not initiating ART
but still urged close clinical monitoring (and laboratory monitoring if feasible) during the first 12
weeks of therapy when NVP is initiated in women with a CD4 cell count of 250−350 cells/mm3 or
with an unknown CD4 cell count and in men with a CD4 cell count of >400 cells/mm3 or with an
unknown CD4 cell count.
The regimen is widely available, applicable to paediatric and adult populations and a preferred
option in pregnancy, and there is large programmatic experience. Triple FDC formulations are
available for adults and children. Some countries have moved to or are considering this
combination already. PLHIV want low pill-burden and FDC options, but AZT and NVP adverse
events may be unacceptable. NVP-associated hepatotoxicity /skin rash can be life-threatening
(but there is an unclear relationship with CD4 and gender). Rifampicin and NVP drug-drug
interactions are such that the combination should not be used unless no alternative is available.
The NVP lead-in dose adds complexity. Recent single-dose NVP (sdNVP) use for PMTCT may
compromise virological response.(84)
14.9. TDF + 3TC (or FTC) + EFV option
In recommending this as a preferred regimen, the panel placed high value on the simplicity of
use (potential for one pill once daily) and the treatment of HIV/HBV coinfection.
Efficacy and safety
The GRADE evidence profiles summarize evidence of low (for TDF) and moderate (for EFV)
quality supporting the use of TDF + 3TC (or FTC) + EFV for the critical outcomes of mortality,
clinical progression and serious adverse events. Existing TDF toxicity data suggest low rates of

38
renal toxicity in prescreened patients. However, baseline rates of renal disease in African patients
seem to be higher than in non-African populations.
The GRADE evidence profile produced for this guideline revision demonstrated no difference in
the occurrence of adverse events (changes in creatinine, proteinuria, all grade 3 or 4 adverse
events or treatment discontinuation) in patients using TDF-containing regimens compared to
other regimens. Imprecision (one pharmacokinetic study) and study limitations (small sample
size) were reported in the profile. The cumulative incidence of nephrotoxicity in TDF-containing
regimens has been reported as 1% to 4%, and the rate of Fanconi’s syndrome as 0.5% to 2.0%,
with no association between renal disease and gender, age or race.(85,86) Only one study
(open-label, 86 participants) reported data from resource-limited settings (Argentina, Brazil,
Dominican Republic), with no discontinuations attributable to renal adverse events.(87) A 2007
report of all postmarketing adverse drug reactions up to April 2005 for 10 343 patients in
developed countries using TDF reported observations of renal serious adverse events in 0.5% of
individuals and graded elevations of serum creatinine in 2.2%. Risk factors for increased serum
creatinine were concomitant nephrotoxic medications, elevated serum creatinine, low body
weight, advanced age and lower CD4 cell count. One study of 15 pregnant women with limited
treatment options reported creatinine clearance of >90 ml/min in all but one, who had a transient
decline.(88)
A triple FDC is available with low pill-burden (one pill once daily) which is well accepted by
PLHIV.
Two drugs in the regimen are active against HBV, no lead-in dosing is required, and the
combination can be used in patients receiving rifampicin-containing TB treatment. There are
limited data on the use of TDF without renal screening or monitoring in resource-limited settings.
TDF is not approved in children and adolescents and there are limited data on the safety of TDF
in pregnancy.
Clinicians may have concerns about TDF use without renal monitoring, especially in individuals
at higher risk for renal complications. There will be additional cost if laboratory monitoring of
creatinine is required. The regimen may only be feasible where renal screening is available or not
a prerequisite.
An alternative non-EFV-containing regimen is required in the context of the first trimester of
pregnancy or for women seeking to become pregnant.
14.10. TDF + 3TC (or FTC) + NVP option
In recommending this as a preferred first-line regimen, the panel placed high value on lower cost
compared to EFV-containing regimens and the treatment of HIV/HBV coinfection.
Efficacy and safety
TDF and NVP are discussed in previous sections.

39
Two drugs in the regimen are active against HBV. There is a relatively low pill burden and the
potential for a once-daily regimen. There is limited programmatic experience with this
combination and there have been reports of higher rates of virological failure when compared to
TDF + 3TC or FTC + EFV.(53)
14.11. Triple NRTI option
It is recommended that the triple nucleoside regimens AZT + 3TC + ABC or AZT + 3TC + TDF
should be used for individuals who are unable to tolerate or have contraindications to NNRTI-
based regimens, particularly in the following situations:
• HIV/TB coinfection;
• pregnant women;
• chronic viral hepatitis B;
• HIV-2 infection.
(Conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence)
These two triple NRTI regimens may be considered as alternative first-line treatments in situations
such as intolerance to both NNRTIs, or where an NVP-containing regimen is contraindicated and
EFV is not available, in coinfection with TB or chronic hepatitis B, or in HIV-2 infection. Recent
data from the DART trial, where the large majority of patients are taking AZT + 3TC + TDF,
showed good clinical response and survival rates of around 90% over 5 years of follow-up.(63)
However, some specific triple NRTI combinations, such as ABC + 3TC + TDF and TDF + ddI +
3TC, showed high rates of virological failure and should not be used. In HIV-2 infection, some
studies suggest a higher risk of virological failure with the triple nucleoside regimen of AZT +
3TC + ABC when compared with boosted PI regimens.
14.12. Stavudine (d4T)
In resource-limited settings, d4T continues to play a critical role in the scaling up of ART, where
approximately 56% of HIV regimens still contain d4T.(89) Alternative options (AZT and TDF) are
more expensive, require more laboratory monitoring and have higher initial discontinuation
rates.(35,90) Cumulative exposure to d4T has the potential to cause disfiguring, painful and life-
threatening side-effects, such as lipodystrophy, peripheral neuropathy and lactic acidosis.
(91,92)
Studies have identified several risk factors associated with d4T-related adverse events. Peripheral
neuropathy was significantly associated with older age (over 35 or 40 years).(93−95)
Lipodystrophy and hyperlactataemia were significantly associated with BMI >25 and female
gender.(93,96,97) Female gender and high baseline weight were also significantly related to
symptomatic hyperlactataemia/lactic acidosis and lipodystrophy in South Africa.(98)

40
On the issue of progressive reduction in the use of d4T in settings where d4T regimens are used
as the principal option for starting ART, countries should develop a plan to move towards AZT-
based or TDF-based first-line regimens, on the basis of an assessment of cost and feasibility.
Systems to prevent, monitor and manage d4T-related toxicities should be implemented. Safer
but currently more expensive first-line ARTs should be progressively introduced as currently they
may not be feasible or affordable in many high-burden settings with low coverage, less
developed health systems, limited laboratory capacity, finite budgets and competing health
priorities. In countries with high coverage and more developed health systems, transition to new
treatment regimens should occur sooner. If d4T use is continued, it should be dosed at 30 mg
BID for all individuals, irrespective of body weight.(99)
14.13. NRTIs not to be used together
Certain dual NRTI backbone combinations should not be used in three-drug therapy. These are
d4T + AZT (proven antagonism), d4T + ddI (overlapping toxicities) and 3TC + FTC
(interchangeable, but should not be used together). The combinations of TDF + 3TC + ABC and
TDF + 3TC + ddI select for the K65R mutation and are associated with high incidences of early
virological failure. The combinations of TDF + ddI + any NNRTI are also associated with high
rates of early virological failure and should be avoided.

41
15.1. Recommendations for HIV-infected pregnant women
1. Start ART in all pregnant women with HIV and a CD4 count of ≤350 cells/mm3, irrespective
of clinical symptoms.
2. CD4 testing is required to determine if pregnant women with HIV and WHO clinical stage
1 or 2 disease need to start ARV treatment or ARV prophylaxis for PMTCT.
3. Start ART in all pregnant women with HIV and WHO clinical stage 3 or 4, irrespective of
CD4 count.
4. Start one the following regimens in ART-naive pregnant women eligible for treatment:
• AZT + 3TC + EFV;
• AZT + 3TC + NVP;
• TDF + 3TC (or FTC) + EFV;
• TDF + 3TC (or FTC) + NVP.
5. Do not initiate EFV during the first trimester of pregnancy.
In making these recommendations, the ART and PMTCT panels placed high value on ensuring
that treatment begins early for pregnant women with HIV, improving maternal and child-health
outcomes and avoiding MTCT, over and above concerns about cost or feasibility.
When to start
On the question of when to start, no studies specific to pregnant women were identified in the
systematic review prepared for this guideline revision. Evidence from the general population
supports strong recommendations for the timing of initiation in terms of reduction of mortality,
disease progression, serious adverse events, the risk of TB and the risk of HIV transmission
(sexual and mother to child). As with the recommendation on when to start in the general
population, the panel recognized the uncertainty around the prognostic value of some WHO
clinical stage 2 conditions, and data from modelling and observational studies indicating that
more than 50% of HIV-infected patients with WHO clinical stage 2 have a CD4 count of ≤350
cells/mm3. The panel therefore recommended that all pregnant women with WHO clinical stages
1 and 2 should have access to CD4 testing in order to decide when to start treatment.
What to start
On the question of what to start, no GRADE evidence profiles were prepared as no RCTs were
identified that compared the use of different ARV regimens in pregnant women. Cohort studies
report a reduction of HIV transmission and death.(100) There is no evidence to suggest an
increase in maternal serious adverse events and there are no studies specifically evaluating
15. Specific populations – when and what to start

42
maternal response to ART. Registry data on the use of TDF in pregnancy show no signals to
raise concern, and there is no evidence to suggest that TDF + 3TC (or FTC) is not an acceptable
alternative to AZT + 3TC.(101,102)
As discussed in the section on EFV, there is very low quality conflicting evidence on the risks of
EFV causing neural tube defects, with the overall rates of birth defects reported in association
with EFV, NVP and TDF similar to rates reported in congenital defects registries of general
populations. However, data are currently insufficient to determine whether there is an increased
risk of rare anomalies such as neural tube defects with first-trimester EFV exposure.
The review of NVP safety in pregnant women with CD4 counts between 250 and 350 cells/mm3
did not confirm an increased risk of serious adverse events. However, while data from two
prospective cohorts indicate no association between NVP and liver enzyme elevation, pregnancy
itself was associated with an increased risk of any liver enzyme elevation and that this association
was present, regardless of prior ART and NVP exposure history.(103) The panel concluded that
the benefits of using NVP in pregnancy outweighed the risks. The panel was unable to conclude
from the evidence reviewed whether there were benefits associated with the use of EFV
compared to NVP in pregnant women after the first trimester and with higher or unknown CD4
cell counts, although more than half of the panel members preferred EFV in these situations.
15.2. Recommendations for women with prior exposure to antiretrovirals
for PMTCT
1. Initiate a non-NNRTI-based ART in women who have received single-dose nevirapine
(sdNVP) alone or in combination with other drugs without an NRTI tail within 12 months
of initiating chronic ART. If an NNRTI-based regimen is started, perform viral load testing
at 6 months and, if there are >5000 copies/ml, switch to a bPI-based regimen.
2. Initiate a standard NNRTI-based ART regimen in women who have received sdNVP alone
or in combination with other drugs with an NRTI tail within 12 months of initiating chronic
ART and perform viral load-testing at 6 months. If the viral load is >5000 copies/ml,
changing to a bPI is recommended.
3. Initiate a standard NNRTI-based ART regimen in women who have received sdNVP
(alone or in combination with other drugs) more than 12 months before starting therapy
(with or without a NRTI tail) if possible. The viral load should be evaluated at 6 months
and if it is >5000 copies/ml a change in the bPI-based regimen is required.
Initiate a standard NNRTI regimen in women who have received ARV drugs such as AZT alone,
without sdNVP, for PMTCT.

43
Table 11. ART regimens recommended for women with prior exposure to
PMTCT regimen
Previous ARV exposure for PMTCT Recommendations for initiation of
ART when needed for treatment
of HIV for maternal health
sdNVP1 (+/- antepartum AZT) with
no AZT/3TC tail2 in last 12 months
Initiate a non-NNRTI regimen
PI preferred over 3 NRTI
sdNVP (+/- antepartum AZT) with
an AZT/3TC tail in last 12 months
Initiate an NNRTI regimen
If possible, check viral load3 at 6 months
and if >5000 copies/ml, switch to second-
line ART with PI
sdNVP (+/- antepartum AZT) with or without
an AZT/3TC tail over 12 months ago
line ART with PI
Option A4
Antepartum AZT (from as early as 14 weeks
of gestation)
sdNVP at onset of labour*
AZT + 3TC during labour and delivery*
AZT + 3TC tail for 7 days postpartum*
* sd-NVP and AZT + 3TC can be omitted if
mother receives >4 weeks of AZT
antepartum
line ART with PI
If no sdNVP was given, start standard
NNRTI (viral load does not need to be
checked unless clinically indicated as no
sdNVP received)
All triple ARV regimens (including Option B),
irrespective of duration of exposure and time
since exposure
Option B4
Triple ARV from 14 weeks gestation until
after all exposure to breast milk has ended
AZT + 3TC + LPV/r
AZT + 3TC + ABC
AZT + 3TC + EFV
TDF + [3TC or FTC] + EFV
Initiate standard NNRTI regimen
If EFV-based triple ARV was used for
prophylaxis and no tail (AZT + 3TC; or TDF
+ 3TC; or TDF + FTC) was given when triple
ARV was discontinued after cessation of
breastfeeding (or delivery if formula
feeding), check viral load3 at 6 months and
if >5000 copies/ml, switch to second-line
ART with PI
1Single-dose nevirapine (sdNVP) is one 200-mg tablet of NVP.
2A tail is the provision of two NRTIs, typically AZT/3TC, for a minimum of 7 days following sdNVP or the cessation of
any NNRTI-based regimen with the objective of minimizing NNRTI resistance.
3If VL is not available, continue NNRTI regimen and monitor clinically (and immunologically if available).
4Options A or B are viewed as equally effective for PMTCT in women who do not require therapy for their own health
and are recommended options in the 2010 update of Use of antiretroviral drugs for treating pregnant women and
preventing HIV infection in infants.

44
Evidence
The long half-life of NVP and its low genetic barrier to resistance means that detectable drug
levels persist for 2−3 weeks in the presence of active viral replication following a single maternal
dose. (104−106) EFV also has a long half-life, with detectable drug levels for more than 21 days
following discontinuation.(107) This has clinical relevance in pregnancy when ARVs are provided
solely for prophylaxis against perinatal transmission and discontinued after delivery or after
breastfeeding. In a meta-analysis of 10 studies, the prevalence of NVP resistance 4 to 8 weeks
following sdNVP was 35.7% and the prevalence of NVP resistance in infants who became
infected despite prophylaxis was 52.6%.(108) In most women, resistant virus can no longer be
detected 6 to 12 months after exposure. However, low levels of viral resistance can persist for
longer periods and in some cases can remain present in latently infected cells.(109−111)
Data suggest that women starting NNRTI-based therapy within 6−24 months of sdNVP exposure
have higher rates of viral failure than those without sdNVP exposure. A definite relationship
between time from sdNVP exposure to starting NNRTI-based therapy has been observed but
varied between studies from 6 months to 24 months, with a definite improvement in response if
>12 months since sdNVP exposure and start of therapy.(112−119) A tail regimen for a minimum
of 7 days is recommended following sdNVP or if NNRTI-based triple therapy ART is used for the
prevention of perinatal transmission and subsequently stopped. NNRTI resistance rates of 0% to
7% at 2 to 6 weeks postpartum have been reported with the use of various tail regimens.
(120−125)
15.3. Recommendations for HIV/HBV coinfection
1. Start ART in all HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals who require treatment for their HBV
infection, (chronic active hepatitis), irrespective of the CD4 cell count or the WHO clinical
stage.
2. Start TDF and 3TC (or FTC)-containing antiretroviral regimens in all HIV/HBV coinfected
individuals needing treatment.
In developing these recommendations, the panel placed high value on promoting HBV diagnosis
and more effective treatment of HIV/HBV coinfection. The systematic review of this topic did not
find RCTs which addressed critical HIV outcomes (death, disease progression, serious adverse
events) and the GRADE profile reported only on outcomes related to HBV (HBV viral load and
HBV drug resistance).
Liver biopsy and HBVDNA are not usually available in the large majority of resource-limited
settings. A global definition of chronic active hepatitis for resource-limited settings based on
clinical and available laboratory parameters is under discussion.

45
When to start
On the question of when to start ART in HIV/HBV coinfection, there are no RCTs comparing early
versus late initiation of ART. However, observational data demonstrate that individuals with
HIV/HBV coinfection have a threefold to sixfold increased risk of developing chronic HBV infection,
an increased risk of fibrosis and cirrhosis and a 17-fold increased risk of death compared to HBV-
infected individuals without HIV infection.(126,127) Similarly, observational data support a reduction
in liver-related disease with earlier and HBV-active combination ART.(128)
What to start
On the question of what ART to start in HIV/HBV coinfection, there are data from one RCT
supporting the use of at least two agents with activity against HBV (TDF plus 3TC or FTC) in
terms of improved HBV viral load response and reduced development of HBV drug resistance.
(129,130)
15.4. Recommendations for HIV/tuberculosis coinfection
1. Start ART in all HIV-infected individuals with active TB, irrespective of the CD4 cell count.
2. Start TB treatment first, followed by ART as soon as possible afterwards (and within the
first eight weeks).
3. Use efavirenz (EFV) as the preferred NNRTI in patients starting ART while on TB treatment.
(Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence)
In making these recommendations, the panel placed high value on the reduction of early
mortality from HIV/TB coinfection, the potential for reduction of TB transmission when all
individuals with HIV are started on ART earlier, and improved morbidity/mortality, reduction of TB
recurrence and improved management of TB for coinfected HIV/TB patients.
When to start
On the question of when to initiate ART in TB infection, one RCT (SAPIT study) provides moderate
evidence for the early initiation of ART in terms of reduced all-cause mortality and improved TB
outcomes.(131) Trial participants were grouped into “integrated” (immediate and end of TB drug
initiation phases combined) and “sequential” treatment arms. Mortality was 55% lower in the
integrated treatment arm (5.1/100 person-years) compared to the sequential treatment arm
(11.6 per 100 person-years), which was terminated. The trial is continuing to examine the
outcomes of starting ART immediately or starting at the completion of the initiation phase of TB
treatment. Until further data are available, it is recommended that ART be initiated as soon as TB
therapy is tolerated. Ideally, this may be as early as 2 weeks and not later than 8 weeks.
There are limited data on the initiation of ART in patients with TB and CD4 counts of >350 cells/
mm3.

46
Impact on TB transmission and incidence
ART has been reported to reduce TB rates by up to 90% at the individual level and by
approximately 60% at the population level, and to reduce TB recurrence rates by 50%.(13,132,133)
Modelling suggests that the initiation of ART for all those with HIV/TB coinfection, if accompanied
by high levels of coverage and ART adherence, reduces the number of TB cases, TB mortality
rates and TB transmission at the population level.(134)
What to start
The recommendations from the 2006 ART guidelines are maintained. Specifically, EFV is
recommended because of less interaction with rifampicin compared to NVP. For those HIV/TB
coinfected individuals who are unable to tolerate EFV, an NVP-based regimen or a triple NNRTI
(AZT + 3TC + ABC or AZT + 3TC + TDF) are alternative options. In the presence of rifampicin,
no lead-in dose of NVP is required.(50,135−138). Similarly, if patients temporarily change from
NVP to EFV because they need to take rifampicin-containing TB therapy and subsequently
switch back to NVP on completion of TB treatment, no lead-in dosing of NVP is required.(60,61)
15.5. Rifabutin
Background
Drug interactions between rifampicin and boosted protease inhibitors (bPIs) prohibit the
concomitant use of standard therapies for both HIV and TB. Rifampicin induces the cytochrome
P450 enzyme system, lowering standard-dose bPI plasma concentrations by 75−90%. All bPIs
(at standard doses) are contraindicated with rifampicin. LPV/r or SQV/r may be used with an
adjusted, superboosted dose of RTV (LPV/r 400 mg/400 mg BID or SQV/r 400 mg/400 mg BID)
or doubling the standard LPV/r daily dose (LPV/r 800 mg/200 mg BID) but this is associated with
high levels of toxicity, and requires close clinical and laboratory monitoring. The recommendation
to use LPV/r 800 mg/200 mg BID is based on low-quality evidence and is associated with a
similar level of toxicity to LPV/r 400 mg/400 mg BID. However, this option may be more feasible
in RLS, as LPV/r is widely available but RTV as a sole formulation is not.(139−142)
There is no comparable recommendation for ATV/r, a WHO-preferred bPI (143). Unlike rifampicin,
rifabutin has minimal effect on bPI plasma concentrations.
Evidence
In a systematic review conducted for this guideline update, ten clinical trials (five RCTs and five
cohort studies) were identified, which assessed the efficacy and safety of rifabutin in TB infection
with or without HIV infection. The five RCTs were included in a Cochrane review, which found no
differences in TB cure or relapse rates between rifampicin and rifabutin.(28)
In the five cohort studies, 313 individuals received rifabutin and ART, of whom 125 received a PI.
Due to methodological issues, no rigorous efficacy assessment from these studies was possible,
but there was no sign of rifabutin inferiority in comparison with rifampicin.

47
Taken together, these studies report comparable safety and efficacy of rifabutin and rifampicin.
However, evidence from RCTs comes largely from HIV-uninfected individuals, and data on the
use of rifabutin with ART are limited to first-generation, usually unboosted, PIs. A further limitation
is that the evidence in HIV-infected individuals receiving a bPI and rifabutin is based on only 125
patients. In addition, the clinical experience with rifabutin for TB disease in resource-limited
settings is limited, especially in the context of the bPIs currently recommended by WHO.
Clinical considerations
Dosing
The recommended dose of rifabutin in the presence of a bPI is 150 mg three times per week.
(144) However, it should be noted that this dose has been reported to result in inadequate
rifabutin levels and acquired rifabutin resistance.(145) Rifabutin is contraindicated if administered
with the new NNRTI etravirine plus a bPI (37% reduction of etravirine levels).
Adverse events
The most common adverse events associated with rifabutin are neutropenia, leucopenia,
elevations of hepatic enzymes, rash and upper gastrointestinal complaints, and, more rarely,
uveitis. In the systematic review, discontinuation attributable to adverse events was uncommon.
This review revealed one case report of uveitis in combination with a bPI.(146)
Monitoring and programmatic implications
This systematic review indicates that a bPI and rifabutin coadministration will not require intensive
monitoring and can be used in primary care settings. However, the DOTS strategy promotes
daily administration of TB therapy, preferably in FDCs.(147) Intermittent dosing of rifabutin will
complicate the programmatic roll-out of TB therapy and precludes the development of rifabutin-
containing FDCs. Further research is needed into the pharmacokinetics of rifabutin 75 mg once-
daily in the presence of bPIs. Meanwhile, the ability to use standard bPI doses outweighs the
inconvenience of intermittent dosing.

48
1. Where available, use viral load (VL) to confirm treatment failure.
2. Where routinely available, use VL every 6 months to detect viral replication.
3. A persistent VL of >5000 copies/ml confirms treatment failure.
4. When VL is not available, use immunological criteria to confirm clinical failure.
In making these recommendations, the panel was concerned by the limitations of clinical and
immunological monitoring for diagnosing treatment failure, and placed high value on avoiding
premature or unnecessary switching to expensive second-line ART. The panel also valued the
need to optimize the use of virological monitoring and ensure adherence.
16.2. Evidence
A systematic review was conducted to assess different strategies for determining when to switch
antiretroviral therapy regimens for first-line treatment failure among PLHIV in low-resource
settings. Standard Cochrane systematic review methodology was employed. Outcomes of
interest in order of priority were mortality, morbidity, viral load response, CD4 response and the
development of antiretroviral resistance.
Based on the pooled analysis of the side-effects from two randomized trials (Home-based AIDS
care [HBAC] and Development of antiretroviral therapy in Africa [DART]), clinical monitoring
alone (compared to combined immunological and clinical monitoring or to combined virological,
immunological and clinical monitoring) resulted in increases in mortality, disease progression
and unnecessary switches, but there were no differences in serious adverse events.(148,149)
However, in the HBAC trial, combined immunological and clinical monitoring was compared to
combined virological, immunological and clinical monitoring, and there were no differences in
mortality, disease progression, unnecessary switches or virological treatment failures.(148)
Viral load measurement is considered a more sensitive indicator of treatment failure compared
to clinical or immunological indicators. VL may be used in a targeted or routine strategy. The
objective of the targeted strategy is to confirm suspected clinical or immunological failure,
maximizing the clinical benefits of first-line therapy and reducing unnecessary switching to
second-line therapy. Targeted VL may also be used earlier in the course of ART (within 4 to 6
months of ART initiation) to assess adherence and introduce an adherence intervention in at-risk
patients before viral mutations start to accumulate.(150)
16. When to switch ART

49
The objective of the routine VL strategy is to detect virological failure early, leading to adherence
interventions or changes in therapy that will limit ongoing viral replications, reduce the risk of
accumulation of resistance mutations and protect the drug susceptibility of second-line and
subsequent therapies.
While staying on a failing first-line therapy is associated with an increased mortality risk,(151) it
is uncertain if VL monitoring, compared to clinical or immunological monitoring, affects critical
outcomes. Immunological criteria appear to be more appropriate for ruling out than for ruling in
virological failure.(152) Mathematical modelling that compared these three ART monitoring
strategies did not find significantly different outcomes.(153) The use of virological monitoring
strategies has been associated with earlier and more frequent switching to second-line regimens
than the use of clinical/immunological monitoring strategies. However, data from ART
programmes and global procurement systems also suggests that treatment switching has
occurred at lower than expected rates in resource-limited settings. Low access to second-line
drugs, difficulties in defining treatment failure and the limited availability of virological monitoring
have been identified as important reasons for late switching. There is evidence to support a VL
threshold of 5000−10 000 copies/ml to define failure in an adherent patient with no other reasons
for an elevated VL (e.g. drug-drug interactions, poor absorption, intercurrent illness): this range
of values is associated with higher rates of clinical progression and immunological deterioration
in some cohort studies.(154,155)
Immunological failure is not a good predictor of virological failure. Depending on the study, 8%
to 40% of individuals who present with evidence of immunological failure have virological
suppression and risk being unnecessarily switched to second-line ART.(156)
While no consensus on ART monitoring and the diagnosis of failure was reached, the panel
supported moves to reduce reliance on clinical failure definitions, expand the use immunological
criteria and use viral load testing for confirmation of clinical/immunological failure in deciding
when to switch to second-line therapy.
Benefits
More accurate assessment of treatment failure will reduce the delay in switching to second-line
drugs. Targeted use of VL can limit unnecessary switching and routine use of VL can reduce the
risk of resistance. While expensive, VL has the potential to save the cost of expensive second-
line drugs by confirming that they are needed.
Risks
The optimum threshold for defining VL failure in a public health approach is still unknown, and
there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of VL in resource-limited settings. There is a
risk that resources used to expand laboratory capacity or conduct VL testing would divert funds
away from expanding access to treatment.

50
Acceptability and feasibility
ART switching has occurred at lower than expected rates in resource-limited settings, and the
limited use of virological monitoring has been identified as an important factor. Many countries
are considering employing VL to optimize the use of expensive second-line drugs. The same
rationale applies when third-line drugs are available. Physicians and PLHIV consider clinical and
immunological monitoring insufficient to promote a timely switch and want VL monitoring. The
initial and ongoing cost is high. The use of VL to confirm clinical-immunological switch (targeted
approach) will cost less than the routine use of VL monitoring. Quality assurance programmes
should be implemented at VL facilities irrespective of the VL strategy adopted. Central VL
facilities with adequate specimen transportation from clinic to laboratory are feasible, as is
point-of-care VL capacity in urban settings. Point-of-care VL capacity in rural settings is likely to
remain unfeasible with current technologies. Feasibility was not systematically assessed, but
targeted use of VL seemed more feasible to the panel than routine use.
One of the critical decisions in ART management is when to switch from one regimen to another
for treatment failure. The 2006 recommendations on Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in
adults and adolescents recognized that definitions for treatment failure were not standardized
and outlined a set of definitions for ART failure based on available evidence at that time. These
remain basically unchanged except that the VL threshold for failure has changed from 10 000
copies/ml in 2006 recommendations to 5000 copies/ml in the current guidelines. An individual
must be taking ART for at least 6 months before it can be determined that a regimen has failed.
Table 12. ART switching criteria
Failure Definition Comments
Clinical failure
New or recurrent WHO
stage 4 condition
Condition must be differentiated from
immune reconstitution inflammatory
syndrome (IRIS)
Certain WHO clinical stage 3 conditions
(e.g. pulmonary TB, severe bacterial
infections), may be an indication of
treatment failure

51
Failure Definition Comments
Immunological
failure
Fall of CD4 count to
baseline
(or below) OR
50% fall from on-treatment
peak value OR
Persistent CD4 levels below
100 cells/mm3
Without concomitant infection to cause
transient CD4 cell decrease
Virological
failure
Plasma viral load above
5000 copies/ml
The optimal viral load threshold for
defining virological failure has not been
determined. Values of >5 000 copies/ml
are associated with clinical progression
and a decline in the CD4 cell count
Fig. 1. Targeted viral load strategy for failure and switching
Suspected clinical or
immunological failure
VL ≤ 5,000 copies/ml VL > 5,000 copies/ml
Test viral load
VL>5,000 copies/ml
Adherence intervention
Repeat VL
Do not switch to second line Switch to second line

52
Fig. 2. Routine viral load strategy for failure and switching
NOTE: This algorithm also applies to the recommendation to check viral load 6 months after initiation of ART in
women who have been exposed to sd-NVP for PMTCT.
Routine
Viral Load Testing
(not a prerequisite
for initiating ART)
VL ≤ 5,000 copies/ml VL > 5,000 copies/ml
Adherence intervention
VL>5,000 copies/ml
Repeat VL
Do not switch to second line Switch to second line

53
1. A boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) plus two nucleoside analogues (NRTIs) are
recommended for second-line ART.
2. ATV/r and LPV/r are the preferred bPIs for second-line ART.
3. Simplification of second NRTI options is recommended.
• If d4T or AZT has been used in first-line therapy, use TDF + (3TC or FTC) as the NRTI
backbone in second- line therapy.
• If TDF has been used in first-line therapy, use AZT + 3TC as the NRTI backbone in
second- line theapy.
In making these recommendations, the panel placed high value on using simpler second-line
regimens and the availability of heat-stable formulations and fixed-dose combinations.
17.2. Evidence
A systematic review was conducted with the objective of assessing the optimum second-line
ART regimen in PLHIV failing first-line therapy in resource-limited settings. Standard Cochrane
systematic review methodology was employed. Outcomes of interest in order of priority were
mortality, morbidity (combined disease progression and serious adverse events), viral load
response, CD4 response and development of antiretroviral resistance.
Second-line NRTIs
Despite a comprehensive search, few studies of relevance were identified. One study reported
no difference in virological outcomes among those maintaining 3TC in second-line regimens
compared to those who did not (low quality of evidence).(157) Observational data supported this
finding.(158)
Boosted PI comparisons
bPIs provide most of the antiviral activity in second-line regimens. There is insufficient evidence on
critical patient outcomes to distinguish between bPIs in the context of second-line therapy.
Randomized trials comparing LPV/r with DRV/r, ATV/r or FPV/r in ART-naive patients showed non-
inferiority at 48 weeks of all three bPIs (evidence of low to moderate quality).(159−163) DRV/r was
superior to LPV/r at 96 weeks.(161) There is evidence of moderate quality that ATV/r is non-inferior
to LPV/r (in combination with TDF and an optimized second NRTI) in treatment-experienced
patients.(164) Non-serious adverse events varied by boosted PI and there were no significant
differences in serious adverse events.(165,166). All unboosted PIs are considered inferior to bPIs.
17. Second-line regimens

54
PI monotherapy
On the question of whether PI monotherapy could be used as second-line ART, there is a
moderate quality of evidence from a targeted review (as opposed to a formal systematic review)
of nine RCTs and individual study reports showing less virological suppression and higher rates
of viral rebound for PI monotherapy compared to standard triple ART regimens.(167−173) There
were no other significant differences in the critical outcomes of mortality, disease progression or
serious adverse events, or the important outcomes of immunological response and drug
resistance (both very low to moderate quality evidence). Non-critical outcomes, such as non-
serious adverse events and lipoatrophy, were not captured in the GRADE evidence profile. The
panel concluded that an NRTI backbone should be maintained in a second-line bPI-containing
regimen.
Benefits
These recommendations will facilitate the simplification of therapeutic options and drug
procurement as the NRTIs recommended in second-line therapy are also used in first-line
therapy (in different combinations), and should be purchased by all programmes. There is a
potential for simplified drug regimens.
Risks
There may be confusion because AZT, TDF and 3TC, the only NRTIs recommended in second-
line regimens, also are recommended in first-line regimens. Some countries have already
chosen alternative bPIs (IDV/r, SQV/r, FPV/r) in preference to the recommended ones (ATV/r,
LPV/r).
PLHIV want better second-line options with fewer side-effects. The preferred bPIs are available
in most countries. Generic heat-stable LPV/r is on the market already. A generic heat-stable FDC
of ATV/r (co-blister packed with TDF/3TC) is in development. Alternative bPIs (SQV, IDV, FPV and
DRV) are not available as FDCs and are more expensive than the preferred options. Saquinavir
has a high pill-burden, IDV has a high risk of toxicity and FPV is expensive. Clinicians may not be
comfortable with not replacing both first-line NRTIs with two new NRTIs in the second-line
regimen.

55
17.6 Clinical considerations
Table 13. Preferred second-line ART options
Target population Preferred options Comments
Adults and
adolescents
(including
pregnant
women)
If d4T or AZT
used in
first-line
therapy
TDF + 3TC or FTC + ATV/r
or LPVr
NRTI sequencing based on
availability of FDCs and
potential for retained antiviral
activity, considering early
and late switch scenarios
ATV/r and LPVr are
comparable and available
as heat-stable FDCs or
co-package formulations
If TDF used
in first-line
therapy
AZT + 3TC + ATV/r or LPVr
TB/HIV
coinfection
If rifabutin
available
Same regimens as
recommended above for
adults and adolescents
No difference in efficacy
between rifabutin and
rifampicin
Rifabutin has significantly
less drug interaction with
bPIs, permitting standard
bPI dosing
If rifabutin
not available
Same NRTI backbones as
and adolescents plus LPVr
or SQV/r with superboosted
dosing of RTV
(LPV/r 400 mg/400 mg
twice daily or
LPV/r 800 mg/200 mg twice
daily or
SQV/r 400 mg/400 mg
twice daily)
Rifampicin significantly
reduces the levels of bPIs,
limiting the effective
options. Use of extra doses
of ritonavir with selected
bPIs (LPV and SQV) can
overcome this effect but
with increased rates of
toxicity
Hepatitis B coinfection
AZT + TDF + 3TC or FTC
+ ATV/r or LPVr
In case of ART failure, TDF
+ 3TC or FTC should be
maintained for anti-HBV
activity and the second-line
regimen should include
other drugs with anti-HIV
activity

56
17.7. Selection of second-line NRTIs
The rationale for the selection of the NRTIs in second-line therapy is to choose the most logical
combination depending on what was used in the first-line regimen. Residual activity of first-line
NRTIs (with the possible exception of 3TC and FTC) is more likely the earlier failure is detected
and switching is implemented. Conversely, any new NRTIs may be compromised in the second-
line regimen if there is late detection of failure and late switching. The recommended NRTI
sequencing is based on likely resistance mutations and the potential for retained antiviral activity.
There are two clinical scenarios:
• early switching based on sensitive monitoring for failure, using viral load;
• late switching based on insensitive monitoring, using clinical or immunological criteria for
defining failure.
If AZT + 3TC are used in the first-line regimen with sensitive monitoring and early switching, the
NRTIs with most likely activity are TDF and ddI. In the scenario of insensitive monitoring and late
switching, TDF and ddI activity are less likely.
If TDF + 3TC are use in first-line therapy, with early or late switching, the NRTIs with remaining
activity are AZT and d4T (both very likely). Retained activity of 3TC is likely in the early switching
scenario and less likely in the case of late switching.(174)
ABC and ddI are no longer recommended as preffered options in second-line regimens. The
panel concluded that there was no specific advantage in using ABC or ddI and their use added
complexity and cost, but new data will be generated from ongoing trials.(175) One study in the
review reported no difference in viral suppression following mainly d4T-based first-line ART, with
and without a ddI-containing NRTI backbone in an LPV/r-based second-line regimen.(176)
Another study reported similar virological outcomes in individuals with and without the M184V
mutation and taking a second-line regimen with or without ddI.(158) No studies reporting failure
following a first-line ABC-containing (or TDF-containing) regimen were identified.
17.8. Maintaining 3TC in the second-line regimen
There is uncertainty about whether 3TC should be added as a fourth drug in the NRTI component
of second-line regimens if ddI or ABC are used as the backbone NRTIs. Only one RCT has been
conducted to examine this issue; it found no significant difference in the reduction of HIVRNA in
individuals who maintained 3TC in their second-line regimen compared to those who did not.
(157) One observational study reported similar virological response among individuals with the
M184V mutation (indicating resistance to 3TC and FTC) who subsequently took 3TC- or FTC-
containing regimen compared to those who took a 3TC- or FTC-sparing regimen.(177)

57
17.9. NRTIs for HIV/HBV coinfection
In individuals with HIV/HBV coinfection who require treatment for their HBV infection and in
whom TDF + (3TC or FTC) fail in the first-line regimen, these NRTIs should be continued in the
second-line regimen for anti-HBV activity and to reduce the risk of hepatic flares, irrespective of
the selected second-line regimen, which should be AZT + TDF + (3TC or FTC) + bPI.
17.10. Selection of boosted protease inhibitor
The recommend bPIs are equivalent in terms of efficacy. In studies of populations with PI
resistance, there is growing support for the use of once-daily bPI regimens in which the ritonavir
component is only 100 mg per day. Such regimens have fewer gastrointestinal side-effects and
less metabolic toxicity than regimens that use ritonavir boosting at a dose of 200 mg per day.
(178,179) Large head-to-head trials have demonstrated non-inferiority or superiority of ATV/r
compared with LPV/r, with less gastrointestinal and lipid toxicity.(159)

58
1. National programmes should develop policies for third-line therapy that consider funding,
sustainability and the provision of equitable access to ART.
2. Third-line regimens should include new drugs likely to have anti-HIV activity, such as
integrase inhibitors and second-generation NNRTIs and PIs.
3. Patients on a failing second-line regimen with no new ARV options should continue with
a tolerated regimen.
(Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)
The panel was concerned by unpublished cohort reports of high mortality among patients failing
second-line therapy, but placed high value on balancing the need to develop policies for third-
line therapy while expanding access to first-line therapy. It was recognized that many countries
have financial constraints that might limit the adoption of third-line regimens.
18.2. Evidence
A targeted literature review of relevant studies provides limited evidence to guide third-line
strategies in resource-limited settings, with few studies of newer agents in these settings. Data
from RCTs, predominantly in developed countries, are available for boosted darunavir (DRV/r),
etravirine and raltegravir. Taken together, these data support the efficacy of these agents in
highly ART-experienced patients. There was no uncertainty among the panel concerning the
need for third-line regimens. However, there was uncertainty about how making third-line
regimens available would affect the provision of first-line and second-line ART. There was also
uncertainty about what third-line drugs should be provided, as many studies are still in progress.
The evidence is very limited, particularly in resource-limited settings. However, as access to
monitoring improves and the scale-up of initial ART continues, demand for second-line and
third-line regimens will increase. The criteria for diagnosing second-line failure are the same as
those used for diagnosing first-line failure.
In a pooled subgroup analysis, DRV/r plus an optimized background regimen (OBR) chosen by
genotyping and phenotyping was shown to be superior to the control group (bPI plus OBR,
where the bPI was selected by the investigator) in highly treatment-experienced individuals.
(180,181) These studies were conducted in high- middle income countries (Argentina, Brazil)
and some well-resourced settings. In a further analysis, DRV/r was well tolerated in treatment-
experienced, HBV- or HCV-coinfected patients, with no differences in liver-related adverse
events between DRV/r and the control bPI group.(182) In developed country settings, DRV/r has
been reported to be cost-effective compared to LPV/r.(183) In individuals with limited treatment
18. Third-line regimens

59
options, raltegravir (RAL) plus OBR provided better viral suppression than OBR alone for at least
48 weeks.(184,185) Similarly, etravirine (ETV) plus OBR provided better viral suppression and
improved immunological response than OBR alone.(186) In patients with multidrug-resistant
virus who have few remaining treatment options, the combination of RAL, ETV, and DRV/r was
well tolerated, and was associated with a rate of virological suppression similar to that expected
in treatment-naive patients.(187)
Benefits
Therapy with newer agents is associated with a reduction in clinical progression and
immunological deterioration. DRV/r has a higher genetic barrier to resistance compared to early-
generation PIs and is active against multidrug-resistant HIV isolates. While high-level resistance
to ETV following NVP or EFV failure appears uncommon, low-level resistance is common.
(188−190)
Risks
There are few studies of newer agents in third-line regimens in resource-limited settings.(191)
Most studies have been conducted in well-resourced or high-income to middle-income
countries, and have demonstrated benefit for non-critical outcomes (viral load suppression or
immunological improvement). There is evidence from postmarketing reports of higher rates of
hypersensitivity to ETV than previously reported.(192) Etravirine and raltegravir are not approved
for use in individuals less than 16 years of age. There are limited data on the use of newer drugs
in pregnancy, including very limited pharmacokinetic and safety data.
Physicians and PLHIV want a third-line regimen to be available. In studies conducted in well-
resourced settings and in modelled cost-effectiveness analysis, DRV/r has been demonstrated
to be cost-effective compared to other bPIs in heavily pretreated patients. The acquisition cost
for ETV is one to two times higher than that of EFV and NVP. The acquisition cost of DRV and
RAL has not been established in resource-limited settings but is expected to be high. The
availability of these drugs in resource-limited settings now and in the near future is uncertain.

60
Table 14. Toxicities of third-line ARVs
Toxicities of third-line ARVs
Darunavir (DRV) Skin rash (10%) – DRV has a sulfonamide moiety; Stevens-
Johnson syndrome and erythrema multiforme have been reported
Hepatotoxicity
Diarrhoea, nausea
Headache
Hyperlipidaemia
Transaminase elevation
Hyperglycaemia
Fat maldistribution
Possible increased bleeding episodes in patients with haemophilia
Ritonavir (RTV)
(as pharmacokinetic
booster)
GI intolerance, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea
Paresthesias — circumoral and extremities
Hyperlipidaemia (especially hypertriglyceridaemia)
Hepatitis
Asthenia
Taste perversion
Hyperglycaemia
Fat maldistribution
Possible increased bleeding episodes in patients with haemophilia
Raltegravir (RAL)
Nausea
Headache
Diarrhoea
Pyrexia
CPK elevation
Etravirine (ETV)
Rash (2 % discontinuation because of rash during clinical trials)
Hypersensitivity reactions have been reported, characterized by
rash, constitutional findings, and sometimes organ dysfunction,
including hepatic failure
Nausea

61
19.1. Guiding principles
1. Countries should establish a package of care interventions, in addition to ART, to reduce
HIV transmission, prevent illness and improve the quality of life.
2. A key component of the package of care interventions is the promotion of early HIV
diagnosis and early assessment of ART eligibility by CD4 testing, in order to minimize
late initiation of ART and maximize HIV prevention.
3. WHO continues to advocate for wider access to monitoring tools, including CD4 and viral
load testing.
4. The package of care interventions should be aligned with the WHO Essential prevention
and care interventions for adults and adolescents living with HIV in resource-limited
settings.(193)
Not all PLHIV are eligible for ART. However, it is imperative that as many PLHIV as possible enter
care before they become ill with their first opportunistic infection (OI) or before they develop
advanced immunosuppression (CD4 cell count <200 cells/mm3), which puts them at higher risk
of developing opportunistic disease. Expanded access to HIV testing and counselling, especially
provider-initiated but also client-initiated, is critical to identifying people who need to enter care.
The pre-ART period in care provides a setting for interventions to prevent further transmission of
HIV, to treat and prevent other illnesses, to prepare for the time when ART will be necessary and
to maximize long-term retention in care.
19.2. Voluntary counselling and testing and provider-initiated testing
and counselling
Client-initiated voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) is the process whereby the client requests
a test. However, attendance at any health facility offers an opportunity to integrate discussion of
HIV and HIV testing into routine medical care through provider-initiated testing and counselling
(PITC).(22) PITC facilitates early HIV diagnosis, partner diagnosis and enrolment into pre-ART
care, and minimizes late initiation of ART.
19.3. Preventing further transmission of HIV
From a public health perspective, PLHIV make up the most important group to address with HIV
prevention strategies.(194) A change in the risk behaviour of a person with HIV has a greater
impact on the transmission of HIV than the same behavioural change in a person without HIV.
(195) Enrolment into care facilitates the identification of PLHIV with behavioural risk factors and
interventions to reduce risk, and facilitates the identification of clinical risk factors, such as
sexually transmitted infections and treatment, and interventions to reduce unplanned
pregnancies and mother-to-child transmission of HIV.(196)
19. Package of care interventions

62
Pre-ART care includes harm reduction for people who inject drugs (supportive environment,
opioid substitution therapy and the provision of clean needles and syringes). This not only
reduces HIV transmission but has the potential to stabilize the persons’ lifestyles by limiting
active drug use in preparation for ART initiation.
Positive prevention strategies, at group and individual levels, have demonstrated a reduction in
HIV risk behaviours among people with HIV. They include support to improve the consistency of
condom use, a reduction of needle-sharing and unprotected sex among people who inject
drugs, and a reduction in the number of sexual partners.(197−199)
19.4. The Three I's for HIV/TB
Among people living with HIV, TB is the most frequent life-threatening opportunistic infection
and a leading cause of death. Pre-ART care provides a setting for implementation of the WHO
Three I's strategy: isoniazid preventive treatment (IPT) where indicated, intensified case finding
(ICF) for active TB, and TB infection control (IC) at all clinical encounters, which are key public
health strategies to decrease the impact of TB among individuals and the community. The Three
I's should be a central part of HIV care and treatment and are critical for the continued success
of ART scale-up.(200) TB infection control is essential to keep vulnerable patients, health-care
workers and their communities safe from becoming infected with TB.(200) Information about TB
should be provided to all people with HIV. Counselling should include information about the risk
of acquiring TB, strategies for reducing exposure, clinical manifestations of TB disease, and the
risk of transmitting TB to others.
19.5. Cotrimoxazole prophylaxis
Cotrimoxazole prophylaxis is recommended for all symptomatic individuals (WHO clinical
stages 2, 3 or 4) including pregnant women. Where CD4 testing is available, cotrimoxazole
prophylaxis is recommended for individuals with a CD4 cell count of <350 cells/mm3, particularly
in resource-limited settings where bacterial infection and malaria are prevalent among PLHIV. If
the main targets for cotrimoxazole prophylaxis are Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia and
toxoplasmosis infection, a CD4 threshold of <200 cells/mm3 may be chosen. Data from an
observational analysis in the DART trial showed that the use of cotrimoxazole prophylaxis
reduced mortality by 50% in severely immune-suppressed HIV-infected adults initiating ART,
with benefits continuing for at least 72 weeks. Furthermore, cotrimoxazole prophylaxis reduced
malaria incidence in these patients.(201)
19.6. Sexually transmitted infections
Pre-ART (and on-ART) care is an opportunity to provide comprehensive STI services, which
should include correct diagnosis by syndrome or laboratory test, provision of effective treatment
at the first encounter, notification and treatment of partners, reduction of further risk behaviour
and transmission through education, counselling and the provision of condoms. Laboratory

63
screening should include a serological test for syphilis, especially in pregnant women, and HIV
testing for all individuals diagnosed with an STI.(196)
19.7. Treatment preparedness
There is evidence that some PLHIV do not have access to accurate knowledge about HIV, the
effectiveness of ART and the challenges of adherence.(202) In resource-limited settings, major
factors contributing to good adherence are free ARVS, ease of use, and preparedness for use.
(203) Modelling studies suggest that treatment readiness is associated with improved adherence
once ART has commenced.(204) Enrolment into care before the time of initiation of ART provides
an opportunity for PLHIV to learn, understand and prepare for successful lifelong ART.
19.8. Early initiation of ART
Enrolment into pre-ART care is critical for the early initiation of ART, maximizing treatment
response and minimizing treatment complication such as immune reconstitution inflammatory
syndrome (IRIS).(205,206) In reality, most people do not receive any pre-ART care, presenting
with advanced HIV disease, and this results in delayed initiation of ART. Mortality rates during
the first year of ART are high (3−26%), most deaths occurring in the first few months, largely
because of late presentation.(207) The fundamental need is for earlier HIV diagnosis, enrolment
into care, ideally with CD4 count monitoring to determine eligibility for ART, and the initiation of
ART before sickness occurs.(208)
19.9. ART as prevention
Studies continue to support the benefits of ART for prevention.(209) There is evidence that
individuals on fully suppressive ART who are adherent to the therapy are less likely to transmit
HIV to sexual partners. Conversely, those with unrecognized HIV infection contribute significantly
to onward sexual transmission. At an individual level, ART reduces viral load and infectiousness.
(210) The use of ARV drugs has been proved to reduce MTCT of HIV.

64
20.1. Guiding principles
1. Laboratory monitoring is not a prerequisite for the initiation of ART.
2. CD4 and viral load testing are not essential for monitoring patients on ART.
3. Symptom-directed laboratory monitoring for safety and toxicity is recommended for
those on ART.
4. If resources permit, use viral load in a targeted approach to confirm suspected treatment
failure based on immunological and/or clinical criteria.
5. If resources permit, use viral load in a routine approach, measured every 6 months, with
the objective of detecting failure earlier than would be the case if immunological and/or
clinical criteria were used to define failure.
Table 15. Laboratory monitoring before, during and after initiating ART
Phase of HIV management Recommended test Desirable test
At HIV diagnosis CD4 HBsAg
Pre-ART CD4
At start of ART CD4
Hb for AZT1
Creatinine clearance for TDF2
ALT for NVP3
On ART CD4
Hb for AZT1
Creatinine clearance for TDF2
ALT for NVP3
At clinical failure CD4 Viral load
At immunological failure Viral load
Women exposed to PMCT
interventions with sd-NVP with
a tail within 12 months and
without a tail within 6 months
of initiating ART
Viral load 6 months
after initiation of ART
1 Recommended test in patients with high risk of adverse events associated with AZT (low CD4 or low BMI).
2 Recommended test in patients with high risk of adverse events associated with TDF (underlying renal disease,
older age group, low BMI, diabetes, hypertension and concomitant use of a boosted PI or nephrotoxic drugs).
3 Recommended test in patients with high risk of adverse events associated with NVP (ART-naive HIV+ women with
CD4 of >250 cells/mm3, HCV coinfection).
Patients who are not yet eligible for ART should have CD4 count measurement every six months and more frequently
as they approach the threshold to initiate ART. If feasible, HBsAg should be performed in order to identify people
with HIV/HBV coinfection and who, therefore, should initiate TDF-containing ART.
20. Laboratory monitoring

65
20.2. Laboratory monitoring on ART
Two RCTs (DART and HBAC) and two observational studies have assessed laboratory monitoring
strategies. The DART study compared a laboratory-driven monitoring strategy (CD4 cell count
every 3 months) to a clinically-driven monitoring strategy.(211) There was a small but statistically
significant difference in mortality and disease progression in favour of the laboratory strategy
but only from the third year on ART. HBAC compared clinical monitoring alone to clinical
monitoring and the addition of CD4 cell count or CD4 cell count and viral load, both performed
every 3 months. In this study, clinical monitoring alone was associated with an increased rate of
AIDS-defining events and a trend towards increased mortality. No additional benefit was seen
from adding quarterly viral load measurements to CD4 cell count in the first 3 years of ART.(148)
The two observational studies which compared immunological and clinical versus virological,
immunological and clinical monitoring reported that, in programmes with virological,
immunological and clinical monitoring a switch to second-line therapy occurred earlier, more
frequently and at higher CD4 counts.(212) Three further monitoring trials, all of which are
assessing viral load monitoring in different strategies, are progressing in Cameroon, Thailand,
and Zambia.(213−215)
For NNRTI-containing regimens, symptom-directed laboratory monitoring of liver enzymes is
recommended. Symptom-directed monitoring means ordering tests only when the care provider
recognizes signs and symptoms of potential ART-related toxicity. For women initiating NVP with
a CD4 count of 250−350 cells/mm3, if feasible, it is recommended (but not required) to monitor
hepatic enzymes at weeks 2, 4 and 12 after initiation.
For AZT-containing regimens, haemoglobin (Hb) measurement is recommended before the
initiation of AZT and then as indicated by signs/symptoms. Patients receiving AZT-containing
regimens and with low body weight and/or low CD4 cell counts are at greater risk of anaemia.
These patients should have routine Hb monitoring 1 month after initiating AZT and then at least
every 3 months. AZT should not be given if Hb is <7 g/dl.
For TDF-containing regimens, creatinine clearance calculation is recommended, if feasible,
before initiation and every 6 months. The inability to perform creatinine clearance is not a barrier
to TDF use. Creatinine clearance monitoring is recommended in those with underlying renal
disease, of older age groups, and with low body weight or other renal risk factors such as
diabetes or hypertension.
There is evidence that individuals taking TDF and a PI/r may experience greater median decline
in creatinine clearance than those taking TDF and an NNRTI-based regimen.(216) Creatinine
clearance should be monitored more closely when TDF is used with a PI/r.
For individuals with HIV/HBV or HIV/HCV coinfection it is recommended to monitor hepatic
enzymes at weeks 4 and 12 following ART initiation if feasible.

66
Table 16. Monitoring ART in those at higher risk of adverse events
ARV drug Major toxicity High-risk situations*
d4T
Lipodystrophy
Neuropathy
Lactic acidosis
Age >40 years
CD4 count of <200 cells/mm3
BMI >25 (or body weight >75kg)
Concomitant use with INH or ddI
AZT
Anaemia
Neutropaenia
CD4 count of <200 cells/mm3
BMI <18.5 (or body weight <50 kg)
Anaemia at baseline
TDF Renal dysfunction
Underlying renal disease
Age >40 years
BMI <18.5 (or body weight <50 kg)
Diabetes mellitus
Hypertension
Concomitant use of a bPI or nephrotoxic drugs
EFV
Teratogenicity first trimester of pregnancy (do not use EFV)
Psychiatric illness
Depression or psychiatric disease (previous or
at baseline)
NVP Hepatotoxicity HCV and HBV coinfection

67
21.1. Special note on coinfection with HIV and hepatitis C
Hepatitis C (HCV) coinfection is significantly associated with increased risk of death and
advanced liver disease in HIV-positive individuals. HIV infection accelerates HCV-related disease
progression and mortality (217−219) but the reciprocal effect of HCV on the rate of HIV disease
progression remains difficult to quantify because of the heterogeneity of study results. A recent
meta-analysis showed an increase in the overall risk of mortality but did not demonstrate an
increased risk of AIDS-defining events among coinfected patients.(220)
A major observational cohort study on the level of toxicities of specific ART regimens used for
HIV/HCV coinfection did not find significant differences.(221) However, the systematic review on
drug-drug interactions prepared for these guidelines found important pharmacological
interactions between ribavirin and ABC, ATV, AZT, d4T and ddI that can increase the toxicity risk
if these drugs are used concomitantly.(222−226)
Many studies also suggest that the sustained viral response rates of HCV therapy in HIV-
coinfected individuals are significantly lower than in HCV-monoinfected patients (227−230) but
others have achieved higher rates in this population.(231)
Considering the significant level of uncertainty on these topics and the importance of hepatitis
C management in the context of HIV coinfection (an important gap highlighted by the guidelines
panel group, particularly the representatives from the people living with HIV community), WHO
is planning to revise the recommendations for the prevention and treatment of major HIV-related
opportunistic infections and comorbidities, including hepatitis C. Furthermore, it is expected
that the 2010 World Health Assembly will establish global policy recommendations for the
management of viral hepatitis, which will increase support for an integrated approach to the
prevention, treatment and care of HIV/HCV coinfection.
Meanwhile, the initiation of ART in HIV/HCV coinfected people should follow the same principles
and recommendations as for its initiation in HIV-monoinfected individuals. However, patients
should be closely monitored because of the increased risk of drug toxicities and drug interactions
between some ARVs and anti-HCV drugs.
21.2. Dosages of recommended antiretrovirals
Generic name Dose
Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)
Abacavir (ABC)
300 mg twice daily or
600 mg once daily
Didanosine (ddI)
400 mg once daily (>60 kg)
250 mg once daily (≤60 kg)
Emtricitabine (FTC) 200 mg once daily
21. Annexes

68
Generic name Dose
Lamivudine (3TC)
150 mg twice daily or
300 mg once daily
Stavudine (d4T) 30 mg twice daily
Zidovudine (AZT) 250−300 mg twice daily
Nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NtRTIs)
Tenofovir 300 mg once daily1
Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs)
Efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg once daily
Etravirine (ETV) 200 mg twice daily
Nevirapine (NVP) 200 mg once daily for 14 days, followed by 200 mg
twice daily2
Proteases inhibitors (PIs)
Atazanavir + ritonavir (ATV/r) 300 mg + 100 mg once daily
Darunavir + ritonavir (DRV/r) 600 mg + 100 mg twice daily
Fos-amprenavir + ritonavir
(FPV/r)
700 mg + 100 mg twice daily
Indinavir + ritonavir (IDV/r) 800 mg + 100 mg twice daily
Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)
Fixed Dose Combination tablets (LPV 200 mg / RTV
50 mg)
Two tablets (400 mg/200 mg) twice daily3
Considerations for individuals on TB therapy
In the presence of rifabutin, no dose adjustment
required
In the presence of rifampicin; use ritonavir
superboosting
(LPV 400 mg + RTV 400 mg twice daily) or LPV 800
mg + RTV 200 mg twice daily ,with close clinical and
hepatic enzyme monitoring

69
Generic name Dose
Saquinavir + ritonavir (SQV/r)
1000 mg + 100 mg twice daily
Considerations for individuals on TB therapy
In the presence of rifabutin, no dose adjustment
required
In the presence of rifampicin; use ritonavir
superboosting
(SQV 400 mg + RTV 400 mg twice daily) with close
clinical and hepatic enzyme monitoring
Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs)
Raltegravir (RAL) 400 mg twice daily
1 TDF dosage adjustment for individual with altered creatinine clearance can be considered (using Cockcroft-Gault
formula).
Creatinine clearance ≥50 ml/min, 300 mg once daily.
Creatinine clearance 30−49 ml/min, 300 mg every 48 hours.
Creatinine clearance ≥10−29ml/min (or dialysis), 300 mg once every 72−96 hours.
Cockcroft-Gault formula: GFR = (140-age) x (Wt in kg) x (0.85 if female) / (72 x Cr)
2 In the presence of rifampicin, or when patients switch from EFV to NVP, no need for lead-in dose of NVP.
3 LPV/r can be administered as 4 tablets once daily ( i.e. LPV 800 mg + RTV 200 mg once daily) in patients with less
than three LPV resistance-associated mutations on genotypic testing. Once-daily dosing is not recommended in
pregnant women or patients with more than three LPV resistance-associated mutations.
21.3. Toxicities and recommended drug substitutions
ARV drug Common associated toxicity Suggested substitute
TDF
Asthenia, headache, diarrhoea,
nausea, vomiting, flatulence
Renal insufficiency, Fanconi
syndrome
Osteomalacia
Decrease in bone mineral density
Severe acute exacerbation of
hepatitis may occur in HBV-
coinfected patients who discontinue
TDF
If used in first-line therapy
AZT (or d4T if no other choice)
If used in second-line therapy
Within a public health approach,
there is no option If patient has failed
AZT/d4T in first-line therapy. If
feasible, consider referral to a higher
level of care where individualized
therapy may be available

70
AZT
Bone marrow suppression:
macrocytic anaemia or neutropaenia
Gastrointestinal intolerance,
headache, insomnia, asthenia
Skin and nail pigmentation
Lactic acidosis with hepatic steatosis
If used in first-line therapy
TDF (or d4T if no other choice)
If used in second-line therapy
d4T
EFV
Hypersensitivity reaction
Stevens-Johnson syndrome
Rash
Hepatic toxicity
Persistent and severe CNS toxicity
(depression, confusion)
Hyperlipidaemia
Male gynaecomastia
Potential teratogenicity (first trimester
of pregnancy or women not using
adequate contraception)
NVP
bPI if intolerant to both NNRTIs
Triple NRTI if no other choice
NVP
Hypersensitivity reaction
Stevens-Johnson syndrome
Rash
Hepatic toxicity
Hyperlipidaemia
EFV
bPI if intolerant to both NNRTIs
Triple NRTI if no other choice
ATV/r
Indirect hyperbilirubinaemia
Clinical jaundice
Prolonged PR interval — first degree
symptomatic AV block in some
patients
Hyperglycaemia
Fat maldistribution
Possible increased bleeding
episodes in individuals with
haemophilia
Nephrolithiasis
LPV/r

71
LPV/r
GI intolerance, nausea, vomiting,
diarrhoea
Asthenia
Hyperlipidaemia (especially
hypertriglyceridaemia)
Elevated serum transaminases
Hyperglycaemia
Fat maldistribution
Possible increased bleeding
episodes in patients with
haemophilia
PR interval prolongation
QT interval prolongation and torsade
de pointes
ATV/r
21.4. ARV-related adverse events and recommendations
Table 17. Symptom-directed toxicity management table
Adverse events Major first-
line ARVs
Recommendations
Acute pancreatitis d4T
Discontinue ART. Give supportive treatment
with laboratory monitoring. Resume ART with
an NRTI with low pancreatic toxicity risk, such
as AZT or TDF.
Drug eruptions (mild
to severe, including
Stevens-Johnson
syndrome or toxic
epidermal necrolysis)
NVP, EFV (less
commonly)
In mild cases, symptomatic care. EFV rash
often stops spontaneously after 3−5 days
without need to change ART. If moderate rash,
non-progressing and without mucosal
involvement or systemic signs, consider a
single NNRTI substitution (i.e. from NVP to
EFV). In moderate and severe cases,
discontinue ART and give supportive treatment.
After resolution, resume ART with a bPI-based
regimen or triple NRTI if no other choice.

72
Adverse events Major first-
line ARVs
Recommendations
Dyslipidaemia
All NRTIs
(particularly
d4T)
EFV
Consider replacing the suspected ARV
Anaemia and
neutropaenia
AZT
If severe (Hb <7.0 g/dl and/or ANC <750 cells/
mm3), replace with an ARV with minimal or no
bone marrow toxicity (e.g. d4T or TDF) and
consider blood transfusion
Hepatitis
All ARVs
(particularly
NVP)
If ALT is at more than five times the basal level,
discontinue ART and monitor. After resolution,
restart ART, replacing the causative drug (e.g .
EFV replaces NVP).
Lactic acidosis
All NRTIs
(particularly
d4T)
Discontinue ART and give supportive
treatment. After resolution, resume ART with
TDF.
Lipoatrophy and
lipodystrophy
All NRTIs
(particularly
d4T)
Early replacement of the suspected ARV drug
(e.g. d4T for TDF or AZT)
Neuropsychiatric
changes
EFV
Usually self-limited, without the need to
discontinue ART.
If intolerable to the patient, replace NVP with
EFV or bPI. Single substitution recommended
without cessation of ART.
Renal toxicity (renal
tubular dysfunction)
TDF
Consider substitution with AZT
Peripheral neuropathy d4T
Replacement of d4T with AZT, TDF.
Symptomatic treatment (amitriptyline,
vitamin B6).

73
21.5. Diagnostic criteria for HIV-related clinical events
Clinical event Clinical diagnosis Definitive diagnosis
Clinical stage 1
Asymptomatic
No HIV-related symptoms
reported and no signs on
examination
Not applicable
Persistent generalized
lymphadenopathy
Painless enlarged lymph nodes
>1 cm, in two or more
noncontiguous sites (excluding
inguinal), in absence of known
cause and persisting for 3 months
or longer
Histology
Clinical stage 2
Moderate unexplained
weight loss (under 10%
of body weight)
Reported unexplained weight
loss. In pregnancy, failure to gain
weight
Documented weight loss
(under 10% of body weight)
Recurrent bacterial
upper respiratory tract
infections (current event
plus one or more in last
6 months)
Symptoms complex, e.g.
unilateral face pain with nasal
discharge (sinusitis), painful
inflamed eardrum (otitis media),
or tonsillopharyngitis without
features of viral infection (e.g.
coryza, cough)
Laboratory studies if
available, e.g. culture of
suitable body fluid
Herpes zoster
Painful vesicular rash in
dermatomal distribution of a nerve
supply does not cross midline
Clinical diagnosis
Angular cheilitis
Splits or cracks at the angle of the
mouth not attributable to iron or
vitamin deficiency, and usually
responding to antifungal
treatment
Clinical diagnosis
Recurrent oral
ulcerations (two or
more episodes in last
6 months)
Aphthous ulceration, typically
painful with a halo of inflammation
and a yellow-grey
pseudomembrane
Clinical diagnosis

74
Papular pruritic eruption
Papular pruritic lesions, often with
marked postinflammatory
pigmentation
Clinical diagnosis
Seborrhoeic dermatitis
Itchy scaly skin condition,
particularly affecting hairy areas
(scalp, axillae, upper trunk and
groin)
Clinical diagnosis
Fungal nail infections
Paronychia (painful red and
swollen nail bed) or onycholysis
(separation of nail from nail bed)
of the fingernails (white
discolouration, especially
involving proximal part of nail
plate, with thickening and
separation of nail from nail bed)
Fungal culture of nail / nail
plate material
Clinical stage 3
Severe unexplained
weight loss (more than
10% of body weight)
Reported unexplained weight loss
(over 10% of body weight) and
visible thinning of face, waist and
extremities with obvious wasting
or body mass index below 18.5. In
pregnancy, weight loss may be
masked.
Documented loss of more
than 10% of body weight
Unexplained chronic
diarrhoea for longer
than 1 month
Chronic diarrhoea (loose or
watery stools three or more times
daily) reported for longer than 1
month
Not required but confirmed
if three or more stools
observed and documented
as unformed, and two or
more stool tests reveal no
pathogens
Unexplained persistent
fever
(intermittent or constant
and lasting for longer
than 1 month)
Reports of fever or night sweats
for more than 1 month, either
intermittent or constant with
reported lack of response to
antibiotics or antimalarials,
without other obvious foci of
disease reported or found on
examination. Malaria must be
excluded in malarious areas.
Documented fever
exceeding 37.6 oC with
negative blood culture,
negative Ziehl-Nielsen
stain, negative malaria
slide, normal or unchanged
chest X-ray and no other
obvious focus of infection

75
Oral candidiasis
Persistent or recurring creamy
white curd-like plaques which can
be scraped off
(pseudomembranous), or red
patches on tongue, palate or
lining of mouth, usually painful or
tender (erythematous form)
Clinical diagnosis
Oral hairy leukoplakia
Fine white small linear or
corrugated lesions on lateral
borders of the tongue, which do
not scrape off
Clinical diagnosis
Pulmonary TB
Chronic symptoms (lasting at
least 2 to 3 weeks): cough,
haemoptysis, shortness of breath,
chest pain, weight loss, fever,
night sweats, plus
EITHER positive sputum smear
OR negative sputum smear AND
compatible chest radiograph
(including but not restricted to
upper lobe infiltrates, cavitation,
pulmonary fibrosis and
shrinkage). No evidence of
extrapulmonary disease.
Isolation of M. tuberculosis
on sputum culture or
histology of lung biopsy
(together with compatible
symptoms)
Severe bacterial
infection (e.g.
pneumonia, meningitis,
empyema, pyomyositis,
bone or joint infection,
bacteraemia, severe
pelvic inflammatory
disease)
Fever accompanied by specific
symptoms or signs that localize
infection, and response to
appropriate antibiotic
Isolation of bacteria from
appropriate clinical
specimens (usually sterile
sites)
Acute necrotizing
ulcerative stomatitis,
gingivitis or
periodontitis
Severe pain, ulcerated gingival
papillae, loosening of teeth,
spontaneous bleeding, bad
odour, rapid loss of bone and/or
soft tissue
Clinical diagnosis

76
Unexplained anaemia
(below 8g/dl),
neutropenia (below 0.5
x 109/l) and/or chronic
(more than 1 month)
thrombocytopenia
(under 50 x 109/l)
No presumptive clinical diagnosis
Diagnosed on laboratory
testing and not explained
by other non-HIV
conditions. Not responding
to standard therapy with
haematinics, antimalarials
or anthelmintics as outlined
in relevant national
treatment guidelines, WHO
IMCI guidelines or other
relevant guidelines.
Clinical stage 4
HIV wasting syndrome
Reported unexplained weight loss
(over 10% of body weight) with
obvious wasting or body mass
index below 18.5, plus
EITHER
unexplained chronic diarrhoea
(loose or watery stools three or
more times daily) reported for
longer than 1 month
OR
reports of fever or night sweats for
more than 1 month without other
cause and lack of response to
antibiotics or antimalarials.
Malaria must be excluded in
malarious areas.
Documented weight loss
(over 10% of body weight)
plus
two or more unformed
stools negative for
pathogens
OR
documented temperature
exceeding 37.6 oC with no
other cause of disease,
negative blood culture,
negative malaria slide and
normal or unchanged CXR
Pneumocystis
pneumonia
Dyspnoea on exertion or
nonproductive cough of recent
onset (within the past 3 months),
tachypnoea and fever; AND CXR
evidence of diffuse bilateral
interstitial infiltrates, AND no
evidence of bacterial pneumonia.
Bilateral crepitations on
auscultation with or without
reduced air entry.
Cytology or
immunofluorescent
microscopy of induced
sputum or bronchoalveolar
lavage (BAL), or histology
of lung tissue

77
Recurrent bacterial
pneumonia
(this episode plus one
or more episodes in last
6 months)
Current episode plus one or more
episodes in last 6 months. Acute
onset (under 2 weeks) of
symptoms (e.g. fever, cough,
dyspnoea, and chest pain) PLUS
new consolidation on clinical
examination or CXR. Response to
antibiotics.
Positive culture or antigen
test of a compatible
organism
Chronic herpes simplex
virus (HSV) infection
(orolabial, genital or
anorectal) of more than
1 month, or visceral at
any site or any duration
Painful, progressive anogenital or
orolabial ulceration; lesions
caused by recurrent HSV infection
and reported for more than one
month. History of previous
episodes. Visceral HSV requires
definitive diagnosis.
Positive culture or DNA (by
PCR) of HSV or compatible
cytology/histology
Oesophageal
candidiasis
Recent onset of retrosternal pain
or difficulty in swallowing (food
and fluids) together with oral
candidiasis
Macroscopic appearance
at endoscopy or
bronchoscopy, or by
microscopy/histology
Extrapulmonary TB
Systemic illness (e.g. fever, night
sweats, weakness and weight
loss). Other evidence for
extrapulmonary or disseminated
TB varies by site: pleural,
pericardial, peritoneal
involvement, meningitis,
mediastinal or abdominal
lymphadenopathy, osteitis.
Miliary TB: diffuse uniformly
distributed small miliary shadows
or micronodules on CXR.
Discrete cervical lymph node M.
tuberculosis infection is usually
considered a less severe form of
extrapulmonary tuberculosis.
M. tuberculosis isolation or
compatible histology from
appropriate site, together
with compatible symptoms/
signs (if culture/histology is
from respiratory specimen
there must be other
evidence of extrapulmonary
disease)

78
Kaposi sarcoma
Typical appearance in skin or
oropharynx of persistent, initially
flat patches with a pink or
blood-bruise colour, skin lesions
that usually develop into
violaceous plaques or nodules
Macroscopic appearance
at endoscopy or
bronchoscopy, or by
histology
Cytomegalovirus
disease (retinitis or
infection of other
organs, excluding liver,
spleen and lymph
nodes)
Retinitis only: may be diagnosed
by experienced clinicians. Typical
eye lesions on fundoscopic
examination: discrete patches of
retinal whitening with distinct
borders, spreading centrifugally,
often following blood vessels,
associated with retinal vasculitis,
haemorrhage and necrosis.
Compatible histology or
CMV demonstrated in CSF
by culture or DNA (by PCR)
CNS toxoplasmosis
Recent onset of a focal
neurological abnormality or
reduced level of consciousness
AND response within 10 days to
specific therapy.
Positive serum toxoplasma
antibody AND (if available)
single/multiple intracranial
mass lesion on
neuroimaging (CT or MRI)
HIV encephalopathy
Clinical finding of disabling
cognitive and/or motor
dysfunction interfering with
activities of daily living,
progressing over weeks or
months in the absence of a
concurrent illness or condition,
other than HIV infection, which
might explain the findings
Diagnosis of exclusion,
and, if available,
neuroimaging (CT or MRI)
Extrapulmonary
cryptococcosis
(including meningitis)
Meningitis: usually subacute,
fever with increasingly severe
headache, meningism, confusion,
behavioural changes that respond
to cryptococcal therapy
Isolation of Cryptococcus
neoformans from
extrapulmonary site or
positive cryptococcal
antigen test (CRAG) on
CSF/blood

79
Disseminated non-
tuberculous
mycobacteria infection
Diagnosed by finding
atypical mycobacterial
species from stool, blood,
body fluid or other body
tissue, excluding lung
Progressive multifocal
leukoencephalopathy
(PML)
Progressive neurological
disorder (cognitive
dysfunction, gait/speech
disorder, visual loss, limb
weakness and cranial
nerve palsies) together with
hypodense white matter
lesions on neuroimaging or
positive polyomavirus JC
(JCV) PCR on CSF
Cryptosporidiosis (with
diarrhoea lasting more
than 1 month)
Cysts identified on
modified ZN microscopic
examination of unformed
stool
Chronic isosporiasis No presumptive clinical diagnosis Identification of Isospora
Disseminated mycosis
(coccidiomycosis,
histoplasmosis)
Histology, antigen
detection or culture from
clinical specimen or blood
culture
Recurrent septicemia
(including non-typhoid
salmonella)
No presumptive clinical diagnosis Blood culture
Lymphoma (cerebral or
B cell non-Hodgkin) or
other solid HIV-
associated tumours
Histology of relevant
specimen or, for CNS
tumours, neuroimaging
techniques
Invasive cervical
carcinoma
No presumptive clinical diagnosis Histology or cytology

80
Atypical disseminated
leishmaniasis
Histology (amastigotes
visualized) or culture from
any appropriate clinical
specimen
HIV-associated
nephropathy
No presumptive clinical diagnosis Renal biopsy
HIV-associated
cardiomyopathy
Cardiomegaly and
evidence of poor left
ventricular function
confirmed by
echocardiography
Source: Revised WHO Clinical staging and immunological classification of HIV and case definition of HIV for
surveillance. 2006.

81
21.6. Gradingofselectedclinicalandlaboratorytoxicities
Estimating
severitygrade
Mild
Grade1
Moderate
Grade2
Severe
Grade3
Potentially
life-threatening
Grade4
Clinicaladverse
eventNOT
identified
elsewhereinthe
table
Symptomscausing
noorminimal
interferencewith
usualsocialand
functionalactivities
Symptomscausinggreaterthan
minimalinterferencewithusualsocial
andfunctionalactivities
Symptomscausing
inabilitytoperform
usualsocialand
functionalactivities
Symptomscausing
inabilitytoperform
basicself-careOR
medicalor
operative
intervention
indicatedtoprevent
permanent
impairment,
persistentdisability
ordeath
Haemoglobin8.0−9.4g/dlOR
80−94g/lOR
4.93−5.83mmol/l
7.0−7.9g/dlOR
70−79g/lOR
4.31−4.92mmol/l
6.5−6.9g/dlOR
65−69g/lOR
4.03−4.30mmol/l
<6.5g/dlOR
<65g/lOR
<4.03mmol/l
Absoluteneutrophil
count
1000−1500/mm3
OR1.0−1.5/G/l*
750−999/mm3OR
0.75−0.99/G/l*
500−749/mm3OR
0.5−0.749/G/l*
<500/mm3OR
<0.5/G/l*
Platelets75000-99000/mm3
OR75−99/G/l*
50000−74999/mm3OR50−74.9/G/l*20000−49999/
mm3OR20−49.9/
G/l*
<20000/mm3OR
<20/G/l*

82
Chemistries
Mild
Grade1
Moderate
Grade2
Severe
Grade3
Potentially
life-threatening
Grade4
Hyperbilirubinaemia>1.0−1.5xULN>1.5−2.5xULN>2.5−5xULN>5xULN
Glucose(fasting)110−125mg/dl126−250mg/dl251−500mg/dl>500mg/dl
Hypoglycaemia55−64mg/dlOR
3.01−3.55mmol/l
40−54mg/dlOR
2.19−3.00mmol/l
30−39mg/dlOR
1.67−2.18mmol/l
<30mg/dlOR
<1.67mmol/l
Hyperglycaemia
(nonfastingandno
priordiabetes)
116−160mg/dlOR
6.44−8.90mmol/l
161−250mg/dlOR
8.91−13.88mmol/l
251−500mg/dlOR
13.89−27.76
mmol/l
>500mg/dlOR
>27.76mmol/l
Triglycerides−400−750mg/dlOR
4.52−8.47mmol/l
751−1200mg/dl
OR
8.48−13.55mmol/l
>1200mg/dlOR
>13.55mmol/l
Creatinine>1.0−1.5xULN>1.5−3.0xULN>3.0−6.0xULN>6.0xULN
AST(SGOT)1.25−2.5xULN>2.5−5.0xULN>5.0−10.0xULN>10.0xULN
ALT(SGPT)1.25−2.5xULN>2.5−5.0xULN>5.0−10.0xULN>10.0xULN
GGT1.25−2.5xULN>2.5−5.0xULN>5.0−10.0xULN>10.0xULN
Alkaline
phosphatase
1.25−2.5xULN>2.5−5.0xULN>5.0−10.0xULN>10.0xULN
Bilirubin1.1−1.5XULN1.6−2.5xULN2.6−5.0xULN>5xULN
Amylase>1.0−1.5xULN>1.5−2.0xULN>2.0−5.0xULN>5.0xULN
Pancreaticamylase>1.0−1.5xULN>1.5−2.0xULN>2.0−5.0xULN>5.0xULN

83
Lipase>1.0−1.5xULN>1.5−2.0xULN>2.0−5.0xULN>5.0xULN
Lactate<2.0xULNwithout
acidosis
>2.0xULN
withoutacidosis
IncreasedlactatewithpH<7.3without
life-threateningconsequences
Increasedlactate
withpH<7.3with
life-threatening
consequences
Gastrointestinal
Mild
Grade1
Moderate
Grade2
Severe
Grade3
Potentially
life-threatening
Grade4
NauseaMildORtransient;
reasonableintake
maintained
Moderate
discomfortOR
intakedecreased
for<3days
SeverediscomfortORminimalintakefor
>3days
Hospitalization
required
VomitingMildORtransient;
2−3episodesper
dayORmild
vomitinglasting<1
week
ModerateOR
persistent;4−5
episodesperday
ORvomiting
lasting>1week
Severevomitingofallfoods/fluidsin24
hoursORorthostatichypotensionOR
intravenousRxrequired
Hypotensiveshock
ORhospitalization
forintravenousRx
required
DiarrhoeaMildORtransient;
3−4loosestools
perdayORmild
diarrhoealasting
<1week
ModerateOR
persistent;5−7
loosestoolsper
dayORdiarrhoea
lasting>1week
BloodydiarrhoeaORorthostatic
hypotensionOR>7loosestools/dayOR
intravenousRxrequired
Hypotensiveshock
ORhospitalization
required

84
Respiratory
Mild
Grade1
Moderate
Grade2
Severe
Grade3
Potentially
life-threatening
Grade4
DyspnoeaDyspnoeaon
exertion
Dyspnoeawith
normalactivity
DyspnoeaatrestDyspnoearequiring
O2therapy
Urinalysis
Mild
Grade1
Moderate
Grade2
Severe
Grade3
Potentially
life-threatening
Grade4
Proteinuria
Spoturine1+2+or3+4+Nephrotic
syndrome
24-hoururine200mgto1gloss/
dayOR<0.3%OR
<3g/l
1gto2gloss/
dayOR0.3%to
1.0%OR3gto10
g/l
2gto3.5gloss/dayOR>1.0%OR
>10g/l
Nephrotic
syndromeOR
>3.5gloss/day
GrosshaematuriaMicroscopiconlyGross,noclotsGrossplusclotsObstructive
Miscellaneous
Mild
Grade1
Moderate
Grade2
Severe
Grade3
Potentially
life-threatening
Grade4
Fever(oral,>12
hours)
37.7−38.50COR
100.0−101.50F
38.6−39.50COR
101.6−102.90F
39.6−40.50COR
103−1050F
>40.50COR
>1050Ffor≥12
continuoushours

85
HeadacheMild;noRx
required
ModerateOR
non-narcotic
analgesiaRx
SevereORrespondstoinitialnarcotic
Rx
Intractable
AllergicreactionPrurituswithout
rash
Localized
urticaria
Generalizedurticaria,angioedemaAnaphylaxis
Rash
hypersesnitivity
Erythema,pruritusDiffuse
maculopapular
rashORdry
desquamation
VesiculationORmoistdesquamation
ORulceration
ANYONEOF:
mucousmembrane
involvement,
suspected
Stevens-Johnson
(TEN),erythema
multiforme,
exfoliative
dermatitis
FatigueNormalactivity
reducedby<25%
Normalactivity
reducedby
25−50%
Normalactivityreducedby>50%;
cannotwork
Unabletocarefor
self
Source:DivisionofAIDS,NationalInstituteofAllergyandInfectiousDiseases,version1.0December2004,clarificationAugust2009.
NOTE:ThisclarificationincludestheadditionofGrade5toxicity,whichisdeath.
Forabnormalitiesnotfoundelsewhereinthetoxicitytable,usetheinformationonEstimatingseveritygradeinthefirstcolumn.

86
21.7. Prevention and Assessment of HIV Drug Resistance
The emergence of HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) is of increasing concern in countries where ART
and ARV prophylaxis is widely used, and represents a potential impediment to the achievement
of long-term success in treatment outcomes. The rapid or uncontrolled emergence of HIVDR
could lead to an increase in therapeutic failures, transmission of resistant virus, and a decrease
in therapeutic options, treatment programme effectiveness and survival. Implementing
programme elements that minimize the emergence of HIVDR, including optimizing access to
ART, supporting appropriate ART prescribing and adherence, and ensuring adequate and
continuous drug supplies, is essential for preserving the efficacy of the limited number of ARV
drugs available in many countries.i Transmission of resistant virus is minimized through support
for prevention programmes for HIV positive individuals.
To guide these interventions, WHO, together with its partners in The Global HIV Drug Resistance
Network (HIVResNet), developed and encourages countries to adopt an HIVDR prevention and
assessment strategy. The goal of the strategy, coordinated at country level by a national HIVDR
working group, is to support development of evidence to inform programme actions that maintain
the effectiveness of ART regimens and limit HIVDR transmission. The elements, which comprise
an important public health tool to support national, regional and global ART scale-up efforts,
include:
Regular monitoring of key early warning indicators in ART sites that may be programmatically
improved to minimize the emergence of HIVDR;
Monitoring surveys to assess the emergence of HIVDR and associated factors in cohort(s) of
treated patients 12 months after ART initiation in sentinel ART sites; and
Surveillance for transmitted drug-resistant HIV-1 among individuals newly infected.
Further information on and resources to support the WHO HIVDR prevention and assessment
strategy are available at http://www.who.int/hiv/drugresistance/.
i Note that WHO does not recommend routine HIV drug resistance testing for individual patient management in settings
where other basic laboratory measurements such as CD4 and HIV VL are not yet available.

87
21.8. Special Note on Antiretroviral Pharmacovigilance
Background
Pharmacovigilance is the science and activities relating to the detection, assessment,
understanding and prevention of adverse effects or any other possible drug-related problems.ii
It incorporates and provides training in the identification of adverse reactions, data collection,
processing, analysis and reporting. Pharmacovigilance is a key component of comprehensive
patient care and the safe use of medicines. Adverse events and severe adverse events, both pre
and post marketing, have been reported with all antiretrovirals. Not monitoring, understanding
and managing these events can result in poor adherence, treatment failure and reduce
confidence in ART by both PLHIV and care providers.
Objectives of pharmacovigilance
The main objectives of pharmacovigilance in antiretroviral programs are to maximize patient
safety and the outcomes of public health programs, identify early warning signs (signals) of
adverse reactions to drugs used in the management of HIV infection, monitor the safety of
antiretrovirals in specific groups including pregnant women and in children, identify drug-drug
interactions and quantify the rates of these events and report them to health authorities/
clinicians. Pharmacovigilance programs also provide methodological training and address
issues related to unregulated prescribing, drug quality control and counterfeit drugs.
Pharmacovigilance in resource limited settings
In resource limited settings, antiretroviral pharmacovigilance is poorly developed but is critical
because of factors unique to these settings. There has been rapid scale-up of largely generic
antiretroviral therapy drug combinations not commonly used in well-resource settings.
Pharmacovigilance is required not only for chronic antiretroviral therapy but also for the
antiretrovirals used for the prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV. There are distinct
co-comorbidities (tuberculosis, malaria) and drug-drug interactions.
Methodology
There are two main methods of monitoring, cohort event monitoring (CEM) and spontaneous
reporting. A third method is consumer reporting, whereby a report of a suspected adverse drug
reaction is initiated by the drug consumer.
In spontaneous reporting systems, suspected adverse drug events are voluntarily submitted by
health professionals and pharmaceutical manufacturers to the national regulatory authority.
Spontaneous reporting is the most common form of pharmacovigilance and is the core activity
of national pharmacovigilance centres participating in the WHO international drug monitoring
program. It requires fewer human and financial resources than CEM, and is likely to be the
method used in most resource limited settings in the foreseeable future. The system has
limitations. The success or failure of a spontaneous reporting system depends on the active
participation of reporters. Under reporting is common in all counties, irrespective of their
ii The safety of medicines in public health programmes: Pharmacovigilance an essential tool (WHO, 2006).

88
resources. Without information on utilization and on the extent of consumption, spontaneous
reports do not make it possible to determine the frequency of an adverse drug reaction
attributable to a product, or its safety in relation to a comparator.iii
CEM is a prospective observational cohort study of adverse events associated with one or more
medicines. In CEM, all adverse events occurring in a patient taking antiretroviral are collected
irrespective of causality or relationship the antiretrovirals. Advantages of CEM (over spontaneous
reporting) include the ability to produce rates, rapid results, early detection of signals, fewer
missing data and less reporting bias. However, CEM is requires more resources than spontaneous
reporting.
WHO and partners are preparing a toolkit for countries wishing incorporate pharmacovigilance
into their antiretroviral programs. In the mean time, the following resources are available:
• Pharmacovigilance for antiretrovirals home page
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/pharmacovigilance/en/index.html
• A practical handbook on the pharmacovigilance of antiretroviral medicines (WHO 2009)
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/pharmacovigilance/arv_pharmacovigilance_handbook.pdf
• Pharmacovigilance for antiretroviral in resource limited settings (WHO 2007)
http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/PhV_for_antiretrovirals.pdf
• The safety of medicines in public health programmes: Pharmacovigilance an essential
tool (WHO 2006)
www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/Pharmacovigilance_B.pdf
• The importance of pharmacovigilance: Safety Monitoring of medicinal products
http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s4893e/s4893e.pdf
iii Meyboom RHB, Egberts ACG, Gribnau FWJ, Hekster YA. Pharmacovigilance in perspective. Drug Safety 1999; 21(6):
429-447.

89
21.9 GRADE evidence tables
The following tables present profiles of the evidence considered for the recommendations made
in these guidelines.
For further information on the methodology of the GRADE process see The Conchrane handbook
for systematic reviews of interventions, available at http://cochrane-handbook.org.

90
WhentostartART
Authors: NandiLSiegfried,OlolakenUthman,GeorgeWRutherford
Date: 11Sep2009
Question: EarlyARTversusstandardordeferredART(CD4≤200orCD4≤250cells/µl)forasymptomatic,HIV-infected,
treatment-naiveadults.
Bibliography: SiegfriedNL,UthmanO,RutherfordGW.Optimaltimeofinitiationforasymptomatic,HIV-infected,treatment-naive
adults.CochraneDatabase
ofSystematicReviews.
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
QualityNo.of
studies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
EarlyART
versus
standardor
deferred
ART(CD4
≤200or
CD4≤250
ells/µl)
Control
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Death
2Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirectness
Noserious
imprecision
Reporting
bias2
6/539(1.1%)
24/526
(4.6%)
RR0.26
(0.11to
0.62)
34fewerper
1000(from
17fewerto
41fewer)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODERATE
CRITICAL
Tuberculosis
2Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirectness
Noserious
imprecision
Reporting
bias219/539
(3.5%)
36/526
(6.8%)
RR0.54
(0.26to
1.12)
31fewerper
1000(from
51fewerto
8more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODERATE
CRITICAL

91
Diseaseprogressionmeasuredbyopportunisticdisease(follow-upmean18months;opportunisticdiseaseevents)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious3Noserious
imprecision
Reporting
bias2
1/131(0.8%)3/118(2.5%)
RR0.30
(0.03to
2.85)
18fewerper
1000(from
25fewerto
44more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
AnyGrade3or4adverseevent–awaitingconfirmationofgradingandfrequencyofSAE
CRITICAL
Sexualtransmission–notmeasured
0--------IMPORTANT
Immunologicalresponse–notmeasured
0--------IMPORTANT
Adherence/tolerance/retention–notmeasured
0--------IMPORTANT
HIVdrugresistance–notmeasured
0--------IMPORTANT
Virologicalresponse–notmeasured
0--------IMPORTANT
1 TheSMARTstudyisaposthocanalysisofasubsetofalargertrial.
2 AstheSMARTsubsetisaposthocanalysistheremaybeothertrialswhichdidnotconductorpublishsimilaranalysesofpotentialsubsetswithinthe
originaltrials.Thisisaformofpublicationbiasandwehavedowngradedtheresultsaccordingly.
3 Thisresultisaposthocsubsetanalysisfromonlyonetrialandtheevidenceisthereforenotdirectlyabletoanswertheoutcomeofdiseaseprogression.

92
WhatARTtostart
Authors: GeorgeRutherford,AlicenSpauldin
Date: 8Oct2009
Question: ShouldEFVvsNVPbeusedforinitialART?(Randomizedclinicaltrials)
Settings: Multiplelocations
Bibliography: 1.AyalaGaytanJJ,delaGarzaERZ,GarciaMC,ChavezSBV.Nevirapineorefavirenzincombinationwithtwo
nucleosideanaloguesinHIVinfectedantiretroviralnaivepatients.MedInternMex2004;20:24.2.ManosuthiW,
SungkanuparphS,TantanathipP,LueangniyomkulA,MankatithamW,PrasithsirskulW,BuraptarawongS,Thongyen
S,LikanonsakulS,ThawornwaU,PrommoolV,KuxrungthamK,2NRStudyTeam.Arandomizedtrialcomparing
plasmadrugconcentrationsandefficaciesbetween2nonnucleosidereverse-transcriptaseinhibitor-basedregimens
inHIV-infectedpatientsreceivingrifampicin:theN2RStudy.ClinInfectDis2009;48:1752-9.3.NúñezM,SorianoV,
Martín-CarboneroL,BarriosA,BarreiroP,BlancoF,García-BenayasT,González-LahozJ.SENC(SpanishEfavirenz
vs.NevirapineComparison)trial:arandomized,open-labelstudyinHIV-infectednaiveindividuals.HIVClinTrials
2002;3:186-94.4.SowPG,BadianeM,DialloPD,LoI,NdiayeB,GayeAM.Efficacyandsafetyof
lamivudine+zidovudine+efavirenzandlamivudine+zidovudine+névirapineintreatmentHIV1infectedpatients.A
rétrospectivecrossstudyanalysis[AbstractCDB0584].XVIInternationalAIDSConference,Toronto,Canada,13−18
August2006.5.vandenBerg-WolfM,HullsiekKH,PengG,KozalMJ,NovakRM,ChenL,CraneLR,MacarthurRD;
CPCRA058StudyTeam,theTerryBeirnCommunityProgramsforClinicalResearchonAIDS(CPCRA),andThe
InternationalNetworkforStrategicInitiativeinGlobalHIVTrials(INSIGHT).Virologic,immunologic,clinical,safety,
andresistanceoutcomesfromalong-termcomparisonofefavirenz-basedversusnevirapine-basedantiretroviral
regimensasinitialtherapyinHIV-1-infectedpersons.HIVClinTrials2008;9:324-36.6.vanLethF,KappelhoffBS,
JohnsonD,LossoMH,Boron-KaczmarskaA,SaagMS,HallDB,LeithJ,HuitemaAD,WitFW,BeljnenJH,LangeJM;
2NNStudyGroup.Pharmacokineticparametersofnevirapineandefavirenzinrelationtoantiretroviralefficacy.AIDS
ResHumRetroviruses2006;22:232-39.

93
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.
of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
EFVNVP
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality(follow-up2studiesat48weeks,1studyat65months)
3Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
29/582(5%)
33/575
(5.7%)
RR0.89
(0.5to1.57)
6fewerper
1000(from
29fewerto
33more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
CRITICAL
Clinicalresponse(follow-up2studiesat48weeks,1studyat65months)
3Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
44/541
(8.1%)
34/532
(6.4%)
RR1.31
(0.78to2.2)
20more
per1000
(from14
fewerto77
more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
CRITICAL
Seriousadverseevents(follow-up2studiesat48weeks,1studyat65months)
4Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Noserious
imprecision
None4
96/612
(15.7%)
140/603
(23.2%)
RR0.68
(0.54to
0.86)
74fewer
per1000
(from33
fewerto
107fewer)
⊕⊕⊕⊕
HIGH
CRITICAL
Virologicalresponse(follow-up2studiesat48weeks,1studyat65months)
5Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Noserious
imprecision
None4
508/643
(79%)
500/639
(78.2%)
RR0.99
(0.91to
1.09)
8fewerper
1000(from
70fewerto
70more)
⊕⊕⊕⊕
HIGH
CRITICAL
Adherezce/tolerability/retention(follow-up4studiesat48weeks,1studyat65months,1studydidnotreportfollow-upperiod)
6Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Noserious
imprecision
None4
335/678
(49.4%)
304/674
(45.1%)
RR1.11
(0.95to
1.28)
50more
per1000
(from23
fewerto
126more)
⊕⊕⊕⊕
HIGH
CRITICAL

94
Immunologicalresponse(follow-up4studiesat48weeks,1studyat65months,1studyat6months;betterindicatedbyhighervalues)
5Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious5None4
643639-
MD3.95
higher
(11.58lower
to19.48
higher)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
IMPORTANT
Drugresistance(follow-upmedian65months)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1,6Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
32/111
(28.8%)
49/117
(41.9%)
RR0.69
(0.48to
0.99)
130fewer
per1000
(from4
fewerto
218fewer)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT
SexualtransmissionofHIVnotreported
0-----None0/0(0%)0/0(0%)--
1 4of6studieswereopen-label;1oftheremainingstudiesdidnotprovidesufficientinformationonblinding(Sow)andtheotherwasblinded(vanden
Berg-Wolf)butstudieswerenotdowngradedbasedonthesefacts.
2 1study(vandenBergetal.)lookedatmultipleindirectcomparisons.Also,only1of6studieswasonlyconductedinadevelopedcountrysetting
(Manosuthi).
3 Numberofevents<300and/orconfidenceintervalsincludepotentialharmandbenefit.
4 1of6studieswereindustry-funded(vanLethetal.),while1of6studieshadafundingsourcethatwasunclear.
5 NoneoftheincludedstudiesprovidedstandarddeviationsforthemeanoutcomesothesameestimatedSDvaluewasusedforallstudies.
6 Only1studyreportedondrugresistance(vandenBerg-Wolfetal.),suggestingselectivereporting.

95
Authors:GeorgeRutherford,AlicenSpaulding
Date:8Oct2009
Question:ShouldEFVvsNVPbeusedforinitialART?(observationalstudies)
Settings:Multiplelocations
Bibliography:1.AnnanT,MandaliaS,BowerM,GazzardB,NelsonM.Theeffectofyearoftreatmentandnucleosideanalogue
backboneondurabilityofNNRTIbasedregimens[AbstractWePe12.2C03].3rdConferenceonHIVPathogenesisandTreatment,Rio
deJaneiro,Brazil,24-27July2005.2.AranzabalL,CasadoJL,MoyaJ,QueredaC,DizS,MorenoA,MorenoL,AntelaA,Perez-Elias
MJ,DrondaF,MarínA,Hernandez-RanzF,MorenoA,MorenoS.Influenceofliverfibrosisonhighlyactiveantiretroviraltherapy-
associatedhepatotoxicityinpatientswithHIVandhepatitisCviruscoinfection.ClinInfectDis2005;40:588-93.3.AurpibulL,Puthanakit
T,LeeB,MangklabruksA,SirisanthanaT,SirisanthanaV.LipodystrophyandmetabolicchangesinHIV-infectedchildrenonnon-
nucleosidereversetranscriptaseinhibitor-basedantiretroviraltherapy.AntivirTher2007;12:1247-54.4.BannisterWP,RuizL,Cozzi-
LepriA,MocroftA,KirkO,StaszewskiS,LovedayC,KarlssonA,MonforteA,ClotetB,LundgrenJD.Comparisonofgenotypic
resistanceprofilesandvirologicalresponsebetweenpatientsstartingnevirapineandefavirenzinEuroSIDA.AIDS2008;22:367-76.5.
BerenguerJ,BellonJM,MirallesP,AlvarezE,CastilloI,CosinJ,LopezJC,SanchezCondeM,PadillaB,ResinoS.Association
betweenexposuretonevirapineandreducedliverfibrosisprogressioninpatientswithHIVandhepatitisCviruscoinfection.ClinInfect
Dis2008;46:137-43.6.BoulleA,OrrelC,Kaplan,VanCutsemG,McNallyM,HilderbrandK,MyerL,EggerM,CoetzeeD,MaartensG,
WoodR.Substitutionsduetoantiretroviraltoxicityorcontraindicationinthefirst3yearsofantiretroviraltherapyinalargeSouth
Africancohort.AntivirTher2007;12:753-60.7.BoulleA,VanCutsemG,CohenK,HilderbrandK,MatheeS,AbrahamsM,Goemaere
E,CoetzeeD,MaartensGT.Outcomesofnevirapine-andefavirenz-basedantiretroviraltherapywhencoadministeredwithrifampicin-
basedantituberculartherapy.JAMA2008;300:530-9.8.BraithwaiteRS,KozalMJ,ChangCC,RobertsMS,FultzSL,GoetzMB,Gibert
C,Rodriguez-BarradasM,MoleL,JusticeAC.Adherence,virologicalandimmunologicaloutcomesforHIV-infectedveteransstarting
combinationantiretroviraltherapies.AIDS2007;21:1579-89.9.deBeaudrapP,EtardJF,GuèyeFN,GuèyeM,LandmanR,GirardPM,
SowPS,NdoyeI,DelaporteE;ANRS1215/1290StudyGroup.Long-termefficacyandtoleranceofefavirenz-andnevirapine-containing
regimensinadultHIVtype1Senegalesepatients.AIDSResHumRetroviruses2008;24:753-60.10.EnaJ,AmadorC,BenitoC,Fenoll
V,PasquauF.Riskanddeterminantsofdevelopingseverelivertoxicityduringtherapywithnevirapine-andefavirenz-containing
regimensinHIV-infectedpatients.IntJSTDAIDS2003;14:776-81.11.GeorgeC,YesodaA,JayakumarB,LalL.Aprospectivestudy
evaluatingclinicaloutcomesandcostsofthreeNNRTI-basedHAARTregimensinKerala,India.JClinPharmTher2009;34:33-40.12.
HartmannM,WitteS,BrustJ,SchusterD,MosthafF,ProcacciantiM,RumpJA,KlinkerH,PetzoldtD.Comparisonofefavirenzand
nevirapineinHIV-infectedpatients(NEEFCohort).IntJSTDAIDS2005;16:404-9.13.KeiserP,NassarN,WhiteC,KoenG,MorenoS.
Comparisonofnevirapine-andefavirenz-containingantiretroviralregimensinantiretroviral-naïvepatients:acohortstudy.HIVClin
Trials2002;3:296-303.14.MadecY,LaureillardD,PinogesL,FernandezM,PrakN,NgethC,MoeungS,SongS,BalkanS,Ferradini

96
L,QuilletC,FontanetA.Responsetohighlyactiveantiretroviraltherapyamongseverelyimmuno-compromisedHIV-infectedpatients
inCambodia.AIDS2007;21:351-9.15.ManosuthiW,SungkanuparphS,VibhagoolA,RattanasiriS,ThakkinstianA.Nevirapine-versus
efavirenz-basedhighlyactiveantiretroviraltherapyregimensinantiretroviral-naivepatientswithadvancedHIVinfection.HIVMed
2004;5:105-9.16.ManosuthiW,MankatithamW,LueangniyomkulA,ChimsuntornS,SungkanuparphS.Standard-doseefavirenzvs.
standard-dosenevirapineinantiretroviralregimensamongHIV-1andtuberculosisco-infectedpatientswhoreceivedrifampicin.HIV
Med2008;9:294-99.17.Martín-CarboneroL,NúñezM,González-LahozJ,SorianoV.Incidenceofliverinjuryafterbeginning
antiretroviraltherapywithefavirenzornevirapine.HIVClinTrials2003;4:115-20.18.MatthewsGV,SabinCA,MandaliaS,LampeF,
PhillipsAN,NelsonMR,BowerM,JohnsonMA,GazzardBG.Virologicalsuppressionat6monthsisrelatedtochoiceofinitialregimen
inantiretroviral-naivepatients:acohortstudy.AIDS2002;16:53–61.19.NachegaJB,HislopM,DowdyDW,GallantJE,ChaissonRE,
RegensbergL,MaartensG.Efavirenzversusnevirapine-basedinitialtreatmentofHIVinfection:clinicalandvirologicaloutcomesin
SouthernAfricanadults.AIDS2008;22:2117-25.20.PalmonR,KooBC,ShoultzDA,DieterichDT.Lackofhepatotoxicityassociated
withnonnucleosidereversetranscriptaseinhibitors.JAcquirImmuneDeficSyndr2002;29:340-5.21.PatelAK,PujariS,PatelK,Patel
J,ShahN,PatelB,GupteN.NevirapineversusefavirenzbasedantiretroviraltreatmentinnaiveIndianpatients:comparisonof
effectivenessinclinicalcohort.JAssocPhysiciansIndia2006;54:915-18.22.SanneI,Mommeja-MarinH,HinkleJ,BartlettJA,
LedermanMM,MaartensG,WakefordC,ShawA,QuinnJ,GishRG,RousseauF.Severehepatotoxicityassociatedwithnevirapine
useinHIV-infectedsubjects.JInfectDis2005;191:825-9.23.ShiptonLK,WesterCW,StockS,NdwapiN,GaolatheT,ThiorI,Avalos
A,MoffatHJ,MboyaJJ,WidenfeltE,EssexM,HughesMD,ShapiroRL.Safetyandefficacyofnevirapine-andefavirenz-based
antiretroviraltreatmentinadultstreatedforTB-HIVco-infectioninBotswana.IntJTubercLungDis2009;13:360-6.24.VarmaJ,
NateniyomS,AkksilpS,MankatitthamW,SirinakC,SattayawuthipongW,BurapatC,KittikraisakW,MonkongdeeP,CainKP,WellsCD,
TapperoJW.HIVcareandtreatmentfactorsassociatedwithsurvivalduringTBtreatmentinThailand:anobservationalstudy.BMC
InfectDis2009;9:42.

97
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
QualityNo.of
studies
Design
Limita-
tions
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
EFVNVP
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality(observational)
5Observa-
tional
studies
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
impreci-
sion
None
270/2899
(9.3%)
108/2542
(4.2%)
RR1.47
(0.67to
3.22)
20more
per1000
(from14
fewerto94
more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Seriousadverseevents(observational)
14Observa-
tional
studies
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
impreci-
sion
None
256/3066
(8.3%)
373/3281
(11.4%)
RR0.7
(0.49to
1.01)
34fewer
per1000
(from58
fewerto1
more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Virologicalresponse(observational)
11Observa-
tional
studies
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
impreci-
sion
None
4023/6661
(60.4%)
3263/4731
(69%)
RR1.03
(0.92to
1.15)
21more
per1000
(from55
fewerto
103more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Adherence/tolerability/retention(observational)
5Observa-
tional
studies
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
impreci-
sion
None
3791/4784
(79.2%)
1894/2635
(71.9%)
RR1.11
(0.94to
1.32)
79more
per1000
(from43
fewerto
230more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Immunologicalresponse(observational)(Betterindicatedbylowervalues)
4Observa-
tional
studies
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
impreci-
sion1
None
15231566-
MD7.51
higher(0.7
lowerto
15.73
higher)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT

98
Authors: GeorgeRutherford,AlicenSpaulding
Date: 8Oct2009
Question: ShouldTDFvsABCbeusedforinitialART?(randomizedclinicaltrials)
Bibliography: 1.SaxP,TierneyC,CollierA,FischlM,GodfreyC,JahedN,DrollK,PeeplesL,MyersL,ThalG,RooneyJ,HaB,
WoodwardW,DaarE.ACTG5202:shortertimetovirologicfailure(VF)withabacavir/lamivudine(ABC/3TC)than
tenofovir/emtricitabine(TDF/FTC)aspartofcombinationtherapyintreatment-naïvesubjectswithscreeningHIVRNA
≥100,000c/mL[AbstractTHAB0303].XVIIInternationalConferenceonAIDS,MexicoCity,August3-8,2008.2.Smith
KY,PatelP,FineD,BellosN,SloanL,LackeyP,KumarPN,Sutherland-PhillipsDH,Vavro,C,YauL,WannamakerP,
ShaeferMS,HEATStudyTeam.Randomized,double-blind,placebo-matched,multicentertrialofabacivr/lamivudine
ortenofovir/emtricitabinewithlopinavir/ritonavirforinitialHIVtreatment.AIDS2009;Jul31;23(12):1547-56.
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
TDFABC
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality–notreported
0-----None0/0(0%)0/0(0%)--
Clinicalresponse(follow-upmean96weeks)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious1Serious2None3
1/345
(0.3%)
0/343(0%)
RR2.98
(0.12to
72.96)
0moreper
1000(from
0fewerto0
more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Severeadverseevents(follow-upmean96weeks)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious1Noserious
imprecision
None3
97/345
(28.1%)
103/343
(30%)
RR0.94
(0.74to
1.18)
18fewer
per1000
(from78
fewerto54
more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
CRITICAL

99
Virologicalresponse(follow-up1studyat48,1studyat96weeks)
2Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency4
Serious1Noserious
imprecision
None3
550/744
(73.9%)
533/741
(71.9%)
RR1.03
(0.95to
1.11)
22more
per1000
(from36
fewerto79
more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
CRITICAL
Adherence/tolerability/retention(follow-upmean96weeks)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious1Noserious
imprecision
None3
221/345
(64.1%)
234/343
(68.2%)
RR0.94
(0.84to
1.05)
41fewer
per1000
(from109
fewerto34
more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
CRITICAL
Immunologicalresponse(follow-upmean96weeks;Betterindicatedbyhighervalues)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
345343-
MD3
higher
(12.69
lowerto
18.69
higher)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT
Drugresistance–notreported
0-----None0/0(0%)0/0(0%)--
SexualtransmissionofHIV–notreported
0-----None0/0(0%)0/0(0%)--
1 BothstudieslookedattheindirectbasiccomparisonofTDF+FTCvs.ABC+3TC-containingregimens.Onestudywasconductedonlyindeveloped
countrysettings(Smith);thefinalstudydidnotreportalocationforthestudy.
3 Onestudywasindustry-funded(Smithetal.)whilethesourceoffundingfortheother(Saxetal)wasunclear;studieswerenotdowngradedbasedonthese
facts.
4 Treatmentfailureinhigh-PVLgroup(viralload≥100000copies/ml)inconsistentwithfindingsfromameta-analysis(Pappaetal2008)ofpatientsstarting
ABC+3TC-containingregimensinwhichpatientswithHIV-1RNAlevelsof<100000copies/mland≥100000copies/mlhadsimilarexperiencesandthat
between87%and95%didnotexperiencevirologicalfailure.

100
Date: 8Oct2009
Question: ShouldTDFvs(d4TorAZT)beusedforinitialART?(randomizedclinicaltrials)
Bibliography: 1.GallantJE,StaszewskiS,PozniakAL,DeJesusE,SuleimanJM,MillerMD,CoakleyDF,LuB,TooleJJ,ChengAK;
903StudyGroup.EfficacyandsafetyoftenofovirDFvsstavudineincombinationtherapyinantiretroviral-naive
patients:a3-yearrandomizedtrial.JAMA2004;292:191-201.2.GallantJE,DeJesusE,ArribasJR,PozniakAL,
GazzardB,CampoRE,LuB,McCollD,ChuckS,EnejosaJ,TooleJJ,ChengAK;Study934Group.TenofovirDF,
emtricitabine,andefavirenzvs.zidovudine,lamivudine,andefavirenzforHIV.NEnglJMed2006;354(3):251-60.3.
ReyD,HoenB,ChavanetP,SchmittMP,HoizeyG,MeyerP,PeytavinG,SpireB,AllavenaC,DiemerM,MayT,Schmit
JL,DuongM,CalvezV,LangJM.Highrateofearlyvirologicalfailurewiththeonce-dailytenofovir/lamivudine/
nevirapinecombinationinnaiveHIV-1-infectedpatients.JAntimicrobChemother2009;63:380-8
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.
of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
TDF
(d4Tor
ZDV)
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality(follow-upmean144weeks)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1,2Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness3
Serious4None
6/303(2%)
5/299
(1.7%)
RR1.18
(0.37to
3.84)
3moreper
1000(from
11fewerto
47more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Clinicalresponse–notreported
0-----none0/0(0%)0/0(0%)--
Severeadverseevents(follow-up1studyat36weeks,1studyat48weeks,1studyat144weeks)
3Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations5
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness3
Noserious
imprecision
None6
250/591
(42.3%)
247/595
(41.5%)
OR1.04
(0.81to
1.34)
10more
per1000
(from50
fewerto72
more)
⊕⊕⊕⊕
HIGH
CRITICAL

101
Virologicalresponse(follow-up1studyat36weeks,1studyat48weeks,1studyat144weeks)
3Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations2
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness3
Noserious
imprecision
None6
384/595
(64.5%)
384/593
(64.8%)
RR1(0.76
to1.3)
0fewerper
1000(from
155fewer
to194
more)
⊕⊕⊕⊕
HIGH
CRITICAL
Adherence/tolerability/retention(follow-up1studyat36weeks,1studyat48weeks,1studyat144weeks)
3Random-
izedtrials
Serious5Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness3
Noserious
imprecision
None6
445/591
(75.3%)
400/597
(67%)
RR1.13
(1.05to
1.21)
87more
per1000
(from34
moreto141
more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
CRITICAL
Immunologicalresponse(follow-up1studyat48weeks,1studyat144weeks)
2Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations2
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness3
Serious4,7None6
559558-
MD5.88
higher
(45.08
lowerto
56.84
higher)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
IMPORTANT
Drugresistance(follow-up1studyat36weeks,1studyat144weeks)
2Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations2
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness3
Serious4None6
18/335
(5.4%)
2/338
(0.6%)
RR6.12
(1.43to
26.15)
30more
per1000
(from3
moreto149
more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
IMPORTANT
0-----None0/0(0%)0/0(0%)--
1 Only1of3studiesreportedonmortality(Gallantetal),suggestingselectivereporting.
2 2studiesof3wereopen-label(GallantetalandReyetal)butstudieswerenotdowngradedonthisbasis.
3 1studyof3wasanindirectcomparisonofTDF/FTC/EFVvs.ZDV/3TC/EFV(Gallantetal)and2studiesof3(Gallantetal,Reyetal)wereconductedonlyin
developedcountrysettings,butstudieswerenotdowngradedbasedonthesefacts.
5 Assessmentofadherence/retention/tolerabilityorassessmentofadverseeventsmaybesubjecttobiasinanopen-labelstudy,sodowngradedforthisoutcome.
6 All3studieswereindustry-funded;theywerenotdowngradedforthis,however,asstudydrugdidnotshowbenefitsolessconcernforreportingbias.

102
Date: 8Oct2009
Question: ShouldTDFvs(d4TorAZT)beusedforinitialART?(observationalstudies)
Bibliography: 1.MocroftA,PhillipsAN,LedergerberB,KatlamaC,ChiesiA,GoebelFD,Knysz
B,AntunesF,ReissP,LundgrenJD.Relationshipbetweenantiretroviralsused
aspartofacARTregimenandCD4cellcountincreasesinpatientswith
suppressedviremia.AIDS2006;20:1141-50.
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
TDF
(d4Tor
AZT)
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Immunologicalresponse(observational)(Betterindicatedbyhighervalues)
2Observa-
tional
studies
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
impreci-
sion2
None
361820377-
MD6.33
lower(22.5
lowerto
9.84higher)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT
1 Thisisfrom1studybutwith2comparisons.
2 NoneoftheincludedstudiesprovidedstandarddeviationsforthemeanoutcomesothesameestimatedSD
valuewasusedforallstudies.

103
Date: 8Oct2009
Question: ShouldAZTvsd4TbeusedforinitialART?(randomizedclinicaltrials)
Bibliography: 1.CarrA,ChuahJ,HudsonJ,etal.Arandomised,open-labelcomparisonofthreehighlyactiveantiretroviraltherapy
regimensincludingtwonucleosideanaloguesandindinavirforpreviouslyuntreatedHIV-1infection:theOzComboI
study.AIDS2000;14:1171-80.2.EronJJJr,MurphyRL,PetersonD,PottageJ,ParentiDM,JemsekJ,SwindellsS,
SepulvedaG,BellosN,RashbaumBC,EsinhartJ,SchoellkopfN,GrossoR,StevensM.Acomparisonofstavudine,
didanosineandindinavirwithzidovudine,lamivudineandindinavirfortheinitialtreatmentofHIV-1infectedindividuals:
selectionofthymidineanalogregimentherapy(STARTII).AIDS2000;14:1601-10.3.FrenchM,AminJ,RothN,CarrA,
LawM,EmeryS,DrummondF,CooperD;OzCombo2investigators.Randomized,open-label,comparativetrialto
evaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofthreeantiretroviraldrugcombinationsincludingtwonucleosideanaloguesand
nevirapineforpreviouslyuntreatedHIV-1Infection:theOzCombo2study.HIVClinTrials2002;3:177-85.4.GatheJJr,
BadaroR,GrimwoodA,AbramsL,KlesczewskiK,CrossA,McLarenC.Antiviralactivityofenteric-coateddidanosine,
stavudine,andnelfinavirversuszidovudinepluslamivudineandnelfinavir.JAcquirImmuneDeficSyndr2002;31:399-
403.5.GeijoMartínezMP,MaciáMartínezMA,SoleraSantosJ,BarberáFarréJR,RodríguezZapataM,MarcosSánchez
F,MartínezAlfaroE,CuadraGarcía-TenorioF,SanzMorenoJ,MorenoMendañaJM,BeatoPérezJL,SanzSanzJ;
GECMEI.Ensayoclínicocomparativodeeficaciayseguridaddecuatropautasdetratamientoantirretroviraldealta
eficacia(TARGA)enpacientesconinfecciónporVIHavanzada.RevClinEsp2006;206:67-76.6.KumarPN,Rodriguez-
FrenchA,ThompsonMA,TashimaKT,AverittD,WannamakerPG,WilliamsVC,ShaeferMS,PakesGE,PappaKA,
ESS40002StudyTeam.Aprospective,96-weekstudyoftheimpactofTrizivir,Combivir/nelfinavirandlamivudine/
stavudine/nelfinavironlipids,metabolicparamertersandefficacyinantiretorviral-naïvepatients:effectofsexand
ethnicity.HIVMed2006;7:85-98.7.RobbinsGK,DeGruttolaV,ShaferRW,SmeatonLM,SnyderSW,PettinelliC,Dubé
MP,FischlMA,PollardRB,DelapenhaR,GedeonL,vanderHorstC,MurphyRL,BeckerMI,D’AquilaRT,VellaS,
MeriganTC,HirschMS;AIDSClinicalTrialsGroup384Team.Comparisonofsequentialthree-drugregimensasinitial
therapyforHIV-1infection.NEnglJMed.2003;349:2293-303.8.SquiresKE,GulickR,TebasP,SantanaJ,Mulanovich
V,ClarkR,YangcoB,MarloweSI,WrightD,CohenC,CooleyT,MauneyJ,UffelmanK,SchoellkopfN,GrossoR,Stevens
M.Acomparisonofstavudinepluslamivudineversuszidovudinepluslamivudineincombinationwithindinavirin
antiretroviralnaiveindividualswithHIVinfection:selectionofthymidineanalogregimentherapy(STARTI).AIDS
2000;14:1591-600.9.LiT,DaiY,KuangJ,JiangJ,HanY,QiuZ,XieJ,ZuoL,LiY.Threegenericnevirapine-based
antiretroviraltreatmentsinChineseHIV/AIDSpatients:multicentricobservationcohort.PLoSOne2008;3:e3918.

104
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
ZDVd4T
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality(follow-up3studiesat48weeks,1studyat52weeks,1studyat96weeks1)
6Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations2
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious3Serious4Reporting
bias53/593
(0.5%)
5/586
(0.9%)
RR0.74
(0.18to
2.93)
2fewerper
1000(from
7fewerto
16more)
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
CRITICAL
Clinicalresponse(follow-up3studiesat48weeks,2studiesat52weeks)
7Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations2
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious3Noserious
imprecision
Reporting
bias58/360
(2.2%)
6/361
(1.7%)
RR1.26
(0.46to
3.45)
4moreper
1000(from
9fewerto
41more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Severeadverseevents(follow-up4studiesat48weeks,3studiesat52weeks)
9Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations2
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious3Noserious
imprecision
Reporting
bias5
137/680
(20.1%)
169/685
(24.7%)
RR0.85
(0.71to
1.02)
37fewer
per1000
(from72
fewerto5
more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Virologicalresponse(follow-up4studiesat48weeks,3studiesat52weeks,1studyat96weeks)
10Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations2
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious3Noserious
imprecision
Reporting
bias5
396/771
(51.4%)
409/768
(53.3%)
RR0.97
(0.89to
1.07)
16fewer
per1000
(from59
fewerto37
more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Adherence/tolerability/retention(follow-up4studiesat48weeks,3studiesat52weeks,1studyat96weeks,1studyat144weeks)
12Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations2
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious3Noserious
imprecision
Reporting
bias5
632/1081
(58.5%)
585/1078
(54.3%)
RR1.08
(0.97to1.2)
43more
per1000
(from16
fewerto
109more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL

105
Immunologicalresponse(follow-up4studiesat48weeks,3studiesat52weeks,1studyat96weeks;Betterindicatedbyhighervalues)
10Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations2
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious3Noserious
imprecision
Reporting
bias5
771768-
MD9.61
lower
(36.82
lowerto
17.6higher)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT
Drugresistance(follow-upat96weeks)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious2,6Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious3Serious4None
10/91(11%)6/83(7.2%)
RR1.52
(0.58to4)
38more
per1000
(from30
fewerto217
more)
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
IMPORTANT
0-----None0/0(0%)0/0(0%)--
1 Separatecomparisonarmsfrom3studies(Carretal,Frenchetal,Robbinsetal)contributedmorethanonceforanumberofoutcomes.Therewere9
studiesintotal.
2 6of9studieswereopen-labelstudiesandsomestudieshadlargeratesoflosstofollow-up,butstudieswerenotdowngradedbasedonthesefacts.
3 5of9studieslookedatindirectcomparisonsofdrugregimens.
5 7of9studieswereindustry-funded,althoughsomewerefundedsimultaneouslybycompetitors.
6 Only1study(Kumaretal)reportedondrugresistance,suggestingselectivereporting.

106
Date: 8Oct2009
Question: ShouldAZTvsd4TbeusedforinitialART?(observationalstudies)
Settings: Multiplesettings
Bibliography: 1.GeorgeC,YesodaA,JayakumarB,LalL.Aprospectivestudyevaluatingclinicaloutcomesandcostsofthree
NNRTI-basedHAARTregimensinKerala,India.JClinPharmTher2009;34:33-40.2.LaurentC,BourgeoisA,Mpoudi-
NgoléE,CiaffiL,KouanfackC,MougnutouR,NkouéN,CalmyA,Koulla-ShiroS,DelaporteE.Tolerabilityand
effectivenessoffirst-lineregimenscombiningnevirapineandlamivudinepluszidovudineorstavudineinCameroon.
AIDSResHumRetroviruses2008;24:393-9.3.MocroftA,PhillipsAN,LedergerberB,KatlamaC,ChiesiA,GoebelFD,
KnyszB,AntunesF,ReissP,LundgrenJD.RelationshipbetweenantiretroviralsusedaspartofacARTregimenand
CD4cellcountincreasesinpatientswithsuppressedviremia.AIDS2006;20:1141-50.4.NjorogeJ,ReidyW,John-
StewartG,AttwaM,KiguruJ,NgumoR,WambuaN,ChungMH.Incidenceofperipheralneuropathyamongpatients
receivingHAARTregimenscontainingstavudinevs.zidovudineinKenya[AbstractTUPEB179].5thConferenceonHIV
PathogenesisandTreatmentandPrevention,CapeTown,SouthAfrica,19−22July2009.5.PazareAR,KhirsagarN,
GogatayN,BajpaiS.Comparativestudyofincidenceofhyperlactetemia/lacticacidosisinstavudinevs.AZTbased
regime[AbstractTHPE0159].XVIIInternationalAIDSConference,MexicoCity,Mexico,3−8August2008.
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
AZTd4T
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality(observational)
1Observa-
tional
studies
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
imprecision
None
8/85(9.4%)
11/84
(13.1%)
RR0.72
(0.3to1.7)
37fewer
per1000
(from92
fewerto92
more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL

107
Severeadverseevents(observational)
3Observa-
tional
studies
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
imprecision
None
14/415
(3.4%)
383/1941
(19.7%)
RR0.42
(0.07to
2.62)
114fewer
per1000
(from184
fewerto
320more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Virologicalresponse(observational)
1Observa-
tional
studies
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Serious1None
33/85
(38.8%)
49/84
(58.3%)
RR0.67
(0.48to
0.92)
192fewer
per1000
(from47
fewerto
303fewer)
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
CRITICAL
Adherence/tolerability/retention(observational)
2Observa-
tional
studies
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
imprecision
None
112/137
(81.8%)
108/135
(80%)
RR1.02
(0.91to
1.14)
16moreper
1000(from
72fewerto
112more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Immunologicalresponse(observational)(Betterindicatedbyhighervalues)
2Observa-
tional
studies
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
imprecision
Reporting
bias2
131237423-
MD16.4
lower
(19.39to
13.41lower)
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
IMPORTANT
Drugresistance(observational)
1Observa-
tional
studies
Serious3Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Serious1None
4/85(4.7%)7/84(8.3%)
RR0.56
(0.17to
1.86)
37fewer
per1000
(from69
fewerto72
more)
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
IMPORTANT
2 1of5observationalstudieswereindustry-funded,althoughsomewerefundedsimultaneouslybycompetitors.
3 And1observationalstudy(Laurentetal)reportedondrugresistance,suggestingselectivereporting.

108
Monitoringstrategiesforguidingwhentoswitch
Authors: LarryWilliamChang,JamalHarris
Date: 12Aug2009
Question: Shouldclinicalmonitoringvsimmunologicalandclinicalmonitoringbeusedinguidingwhentoswitchfirst-line
antiretroviraltherapyinadultsinlow-resourcesettings?
Settings: Low-resourcesettings
Bibliography: HBAC2008,DART2009
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Impor-
tance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.
of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ation
Clinical
monitoring
Immuno-
logicaland
Clinical
Monitoring
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality(follow-upmedian3-5years)
2Random-
ized
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
?/20375?/20275
HR1.35
(1.12to
1.63)
-
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
AIDS-definingillness–notreported
0----------CRITICAL
AIDS-definingillnessormortality(follow-upmedian3-5years)
2Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Noserious
imprecision
None4
547/2037
(26.9%)6
414/2027
(20.4%)6
HR1.33
(1.16to
1.51)
58more
per1000
(from29
moreto88
more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
CRITIC-AL
Seriousadverseevent(follow-upmedian5years)
17Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsist-
ency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
?/16608?/16568
HR1.12
(0.94to
1.31)
-
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL

109
Unnecessaryswitch(switchtosecond-linetherapywithundetectableviralload)(follow-upmedian3years)
17Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
15/377(4%)0/371(0%)
RR30.5
(1.83to
508)
-
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Switchtosecond-linetherapy(follow-upmedian3−5years)
2Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Serious9Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Noserious
imprecision
None4
331/2037
(16.2%)
365/2027
(18%)
RR1.73
(0.37to
8.06)
13moreper
100(from
11fewerto
127more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
1 Unclearsequencegenerationandallocationconcealmentandblindingwasnotpossibleforbothstudies;losttofollow-upanalysesnotextensivelypresented
foreithertrialbutabsolutenumberswererelativelysmall.
2 Patientpopulationspreselectedandwithinrelativelywell-resourcedARTdeliveryprogrammes;however,assettingwaslow-resource,nodowngrading
occurred.
3 Totalnumberofeventsissmall.
4 Abstractsonly,nopeer-reviewedprintpublicationsofthesedataareavailable;however,asasignificantamountofdatawasavailablefromabstracts/
conferencepresentationsnodowngradingoccurred.
5 Numberwitheventnotreportedineitherstudy.DARTmortalityinclinicalarm2.94/100P-Y,inimmunological+clinicalarm2.18/100patients-year.
6 InDARTinclinicalarm6.94events/100patients-year,inimmunological+clinicalarm,5.24events/100patients-year.InHBACinclinicalarm7.57events/100
patients-yearinimmunological+clinicalarm5.97events/100patients-year.
7 DARTstudyonly.
8 Numberwitheventnotreported.
9 Numberofeventsandpointestimatevariedwidelybetweenthetwostudies.

110
Date: 12Aug2009
Question: Shouldclinicalmonitoringvsvirological,immunological,andclinicalmonitoringbeusedforguidingwhentoswitch
first-lineantiretroviraltherapyinadultsinlow-resourcesettings?
Settings: Low-resourcesettings
Bibliography: HBAC2008
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
NoofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.
of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Imprecis-
ion
Other
consider-
ations
Clinical
monitoring
Virologi-
cal,
immuno-
logical,
and
clinical
monitoring
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality(follow-upmedian3years)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
?/3775?/3685HR1.58
(0.97to2.6)
-
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
0----------CRITICAL
AIDS-definingillnessormortality(follow-upmedian3years)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
72/377
(19.1%)6
47/368
(12.8%)6
HR1.88
(1.25to
2.84)
99more
per1000
(from29
moreto194
more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Unnecessaryswitch(switchtosecond-linetherapywithundetectableviralload)(follow-upmedian3years)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
15/377(4%)0/368(0%)
RR30.3
(1.82to
504)
-
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL

111
Virologicaltreatmentfailure(follow-upmedian3years)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
19/377(5%)
16/368
(4.3%)
RR1.16(0.6
to2.19)
7moreper
1000(from
17fewerto
52more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT
Switchtosecond-linetherapy(follow-upmedian3years)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
17/377
(4.5%)
7/368
(1.9%)
RR2.37
(0.99to
5.65)
26more
per1000
(from0
fewerto88
more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
1 Unclearsequencegenerationandallocationconcealment,losttofollow-upanalysesnotextensivelypresentedbutabsolutenumberswererelativelysmall,
andblindingwasnotpossible.
2 Patientpopulationspreselectedandwithinrelativelywell-resourcedARTdeliveryprogrammes;however,asthisstudywasinalow-resourcesettingitwas
notdowngraded.
3 Totalnumberofeventswassmall.
6 Inclinicalarm7.57events/100patients-year,invirological+immunological+clinicalarm4.80events/100patients-year.

112
Date: 12Aug2009
Question: Shouldclinicalandimmunologicalmonitoringvsvirological,immunologicalandclinicalmonitoringbeusedinguiding
whentoswitchfirst-lineantiretroviraltherapyinadultsinlow-resourcesettings?
Settings: Low-resourcesettings.
Bibliography: H.B.A.C.2008
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.
of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
Clinical
and
immuno-
logical
monitoring
Virologi-
cal,
immuno-
logicaland
clinical
monitoring
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality(follow-upmedian3years)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
?/3715?/3685HR1.14(0.7
to1.9)
-
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
0----------CRITICAL
AIDS-definingillnessormortality(follow-upmedian3years)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
58/371
(15.6%)6
47/368
(12.8%)
HR1.28
(0.84to
1.97)
33more
per1000
(from19
fewerto
108more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Unncessaryswitch(switchtosecond-linetherapywithundetectableviralload)(follow-upmedian3years)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Very
serious7
None4
0/371(0%)0/368(0%)
Not
estim-able
-
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
CRITICAL

113
Virologicaltreatmentfailure(follow-upmedian3years)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
26/371(7%)
16/368
(4.3%)
RR1.61
(0.88to
2.95)
27more
per1000
(from5
fewerto85
more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT
Switchtosecond-linetherapy(follow-upmedian3years)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None4
4/371(1.1%)
7/368
(1.9%)
RR0.57
(0.17to
1.92)
8fewerper
1000(from
16fewerto
18more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
1 Unclearsequencegenerationandallocationconcealment,losttofollow-upanalysesnotextensivelypresentedbutabsolutenumberswererelativelysmall,
andblindingwasnotpossible.
2 Patientpopulationspreselectedandwithinrelativelywell-resourcedARTdeliveryprogrammes;however,asthisstudywasinalow-resourcesettingitwasnot
downgraded.
3 Totalnumberofeventsissmall.
6 Inclinical+immunologicalarm5.97events/100patients-year,invirological+immunological+clinicalarm4.80events/100patients-year.
7 Totalnumberofeventsisverysmall.

114
Date: 14Sep2009
Question: Shouldvirological,immunological,andclinicalmonitoringvsimmunologicalandclinicalmonitoringbeusedin
guidingwhentoswitchfirst-lineantiretroviraltherapyinadultsinlow-resourcesettings?
Settings: Low-resourcesettings.
Bibliography: ARTLINC2006,2008
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Impor-
tance
NoofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.
of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
Virologi-
cal,
immuno-
logicaland
clinical
monitoring
Immuno-
logicaland
clinical
monitoring
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality(follow-up12months)
1Observ-
ational
studies
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
imprecision
None
See
comment2
See
comment2
HR2.28
(0.76to
6.79)
-
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
CRITICAL
Rateofswitching
1Observ-
ational
studies
Serious3Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
imprecision
None
236/6369
(3.7%)
340/13744
(2.5%)
RR1.60
(1.35to
1.89)4
15moreper
1000(from
9moreto
22more)
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
Timetoswitch(7-18months)
1Observ-
ational
studies
Serious3Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
imprecision
None
?/63695?/137445
HR1.38
(0.97to
1.98)
-
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
1Observ-
ational
studies
Serious3Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
imprecision
None
?/27015?/64885HR0.97
(0.58to1.6)
-
⊕OOO
VERYLOW

115
1Observ-
ational
studies
Serious3Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
imprecision
None
?/9235?/28025
HR0.29
(0.11to
0.79)
-
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
CD4cellcountattimeofswitch
1Observ-
ational
studies
Serious3Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Noserious
indirect-
ness
Noserious
imprecision
None
141patients
261
patients
See
com-ment.6-
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
1 Thisoutcomewasasubgroupanalysis,selectionofnon-exposedcohortswerenotdrawnfromsamecommunitiesastheexposedcohorts.
2 Numberwitheventandatrisknotreported.
3 Selectionofnon-exposedcohortswasnotdrawnfromthesamecommunitiesastheexposedcohorts;incompletefollow-updataonmanyparticipants.
4 Programmeswithvirologicalmonitoringrateofswitchingwas3.2/100patients-year(95%CI2.2−2.6)versus2.0/100patients-year(95%CI1.9−2.3)inthose
without(p<0.0001);RRhereisarateratio.
6 ProgrammeswithvirologicalmonitoringCD4cellcountattimeofswitchingwas161cells/µlcomparedto102cells/µlinthosewithout(p=0.001).

116
Whattouseinsecond-line
Authors: HumphreysEandHarrisJ
Date: 21Aug2009
Question: Shouldlamivudine(3TC)bemaintainedinsecond-lineantiretroviralregimensforpatientsfailingfirst-linetherapy?
Bibliography: FoxZ,DragstedU,GerstoftJ,etal.Arandomizedtrialtoevaluatecontinuationversusdiscontinuationoflamivudine
inindividualsfailingalamivudine-containingregimen:theCOLATEtrial.Antiviraltherapy2006;11(6):761-770.
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.
of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
Maintain-
ing3TCin
2ndline
No3TCin
2ndline
(control)
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality–notmeasured1
0-------CRITICAL
Progressionofdisease–notmeasured
0-------CRITICAL
Severeadverseevents(follow-up48weeks)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations3
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
--
Not
estimable2
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Adherence/tolerability/retention–notreported
0-------CRITICAL
Virologicalresponse(follow-up48weeks;measuredas:meanreductionfrombaselinelog10copies/mlofHIVRNA;betterindicatedbyhighervalues)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
28627-
MD0.4
lower(0.87
lowerto
0.07higher)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT

117
ProportionachievingVL<50copies/ml(follow-up48weeks)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations2
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
38/65
(58.5%)
30/66
(45.5%)
RR1.29
(0.92to
1.80)
132more
per1000
(from36
fewerto
364more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT
Immunologicalresponse(follow-up48weeks;measuredas:medianincreaseinCD4frombaseline7;Betterindicatedbyhighervalues)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
6566-
Median
increase11
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT
1 Table1reports1deathinOff3TCarmamongpatientswhoinitiatedtreatmentbutdiscontinued.
2 Numbersprovidedarenon-fatalclinicaladverseeventsperarm/totaladverseevents(among49participants).Furtherinformationnotprovided.Nodifference
inadverseeventsbetweenarms;43/94(45.7%)eventsinOn3TCarmand51/94(54.3%)eventsinOff3TCarm(p=0.25).
3 Open-labelstudy;notdowngradedforthis.PartialfundingfromIndustryinearlyphasesoftrial,alsonotdowngradedforthis(lowriskofbiassincestudydrug
notfavouredsignificantlybyresults).
4 Clinician-optimizedregimen;patientsnotfromresource-limitedsetting(studypopulationfrom12Europeancountries).
5 Feweventsorlownumberofpatients.
6 NumbersrepresentstratumA,anapriorisubgroupofpatientswithonly1prior3TC-containingregimen(n=55).SimilarresultsforstratumB,thosewithmore
than1priorregimen(n=76).ThemeanreductionsfrombaselineinHIVRNAinoverallgroupswere1.4log10copies/ml(95%CI1.1−1.6)inOn3TCgroupand
1.5(95%CI1.2−1.7)inOff3TCgroup.
7 NoSDor95%CIavailablefromstudy(IQRprovided);unabletoreportmeandifferencebetweengroupsalthoughmediandifferencereportedasnotsignificant
(+87inOn3TCcomparedto76inOff3TCgroup,p=0.41).

118
Question: ShouldPImonotherapybeusedforpatientsfailingfirst-linetherapy?
Bibliography: Arribas2005;Arribas2009a;Arribas2009b;Cameron2008;Delfraissy2008;Guttmann2008;Katlama2009;Nunes
2007;Singh2007;Waters2008.
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.
of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
PI
monother-
apy
cART
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality(follow-up96weeks)
2Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
3/207
(1.4%)
1/153
(0.7%)
RR1.46
(0.22to
9.8)
3moreper
1000(from
5fewerto
58more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Clinicaldiseaseprogression–notreported
0-----none----CRITICAL
Seriousadverseevents(grade3or4adverseevent;follow-up1study24weeks,4studies48weeks,2studies96weeks)5
7Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
25/499(5%)
26/472
(5.5%)
RR1.02
(0.5to2.07)
1moreper
1000(from
28fewerto
59more)
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
CRITICAL
Adherence/tolerability/retention(proportiononrandomizedtreatmentatstudyend;follow-up1study24weeks,4studiesat48weeks,3studiesat96weeks)
8Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious2Noserious
imprecision
None
506/607
(83.4%)
448/529
(84.7%)
RR0.99
(0.95to
1.04)
8fewerper
1000(from
42fewerto
34more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
CRITICAL
Virologicalresponse(proportionwithHIVRNA<50copies/mlorlowestreportedvalue;follow-up6studies48weeks,3studies96weeks)
9Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious2Noserious
imprecision
None
470/636
(73.9%)
460/560
(82.1%)
RR0.94
(0.89to
0.99)
49fewer
per1000
(from8
fewerto90
fewer)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
IMPORTANT

119
Immunologicalresponse(measuredwith:meanincreasefrombaselineCD4;betterindicatedbyhighervalues;follow-up1study24weeks,2studies48
weeks,2studies96weeks)
5Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious2Noserious
imprecision
None
338256-
Not
pooled6
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
IMPORTANT
Drugresistance(acquisitionofmajorproteasemutations;follow-up4studies96weeks,2studies96weeks)
6Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
10/551
(1.8%)
4/470
(0.9%)
RR1.55
(0.48to
5.01)
5moreper
1000(from
4fewerto
34more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT
1 Open-labelstudies,notdowngradedforthisexceptforsevereadverseevents,whichmaybemorepronetobiasinopen-labeltrials.Sixof9studiesindustry-
sponsoredand3withunclearreportingofsponsorship.
2 Allbut2studies(Cameron2008andDelfraissy2008)weremonotherapystudiesthatenrolledpatientswithviralsuppressionand/orwhowereART-naive;
indirectcomparisontopopulationwhowoulduseactivePIinsecond-lineafterfailureonfirst-lineregimen.
3 Lownumberofevents(<300)andCIindicatespotentialforappreciablebenefitandharm.
4 Someconcernforlackofclearmortalityoutcomereportingintherestofthebodyofevidencesinceonly2studiesreportdeaths.DeathsreportedinCameron
2008andArribas2009awereunrelatedtostudydrugs;otherstudiespresumednottohaveanydeaths(andmortalitynotprimaryend-pointinanyofthe
studies).
5 ITT-Epopulationused(randomizedanddosed).Somevariabilityinreporting;“seriousadverseevents”or“adverseeventsleadingtodiscontinuation”used.
Cameron2008notincludedasreportstates“3patientsdiscontinuedduetoadverseevents”butdoesnotspecifywhicharm.
6 Estimatenotpooledbecauseofvariability(medianvs.mean)inreporting,orlackofrawnumbers.Allstudiesreportnonsignificantdifferencesbetweenarms
inimmunologicalchanges.

120
Question: Shouldatazanavir/ritonavirvs.lopinavir/ritonavirbeusedforpatientsfailingfirst-linetherapy?
Bibliography: MolinaJM,Andrade-VillanuevaJ,EchevarriaJ,etal.Once-dailyatazanavir/ritonavirversustwice-dailylopinavir/
ritonavir,eachincombinationwithtenofovirandemtricitabine,formanagementofantiretroviral-naiveHIV-1-infected
patients:48weekefficacyandsafetyresultsoftheCASTLEstudy.Lancet2008;372:646-55.MolinaJM,Andrade-
VillanuevaJ,EchevarriaJ,etal.Atazanavir/ritonavirvs.lopinavir/ritonavirinantiretroviralnaiveHIV-1-infectedpatients:
CASTLE96-weekefficacyandsafety.48tthAnnualICAAC/IDSAMeeting,October25−28,2008,WashingtonDC.
AbstractH-1250d.
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.
of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
Atazanavir/
ritonavir
Lopinavir/
ritonavir
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None
6/440
(1.4%)
6/443
(1.4%)
RR1.01
(0.33to3.1)
0moreper
1000(from
9fewerto
28more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Severeadverseevents(follow-up96weeks)4
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None
63/441
(14.3%)
50/437
(11.4%)
RR1.25
(0.88to
1.77)
29more
per1000
(from14
fewerto88
more)
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
CRITICAL
0-------CRITICAL
Adherence/tolerability/retention(follow-up48weeks;adherencequestionnaire)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious
indirect-
ness2
Noserious
imprecision
None
330/440
(75%)
316/443
(71.3%)
RR1.05
(0.97to
1.14)
36more
per1000
(from21
fewerto
100more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL

121
Virologicalresponse,proportion<50copies(follow-up96weeks)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious
indirect-
ness2
Noserious
imprecision
None
308/440
(70%)
279/443
(63%)
RR1.08
(0.99to
1.18)5
54more
per1000
(from7
fewerto
121more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
IMPORTANT
Immunologicalresponse(follow-upmean96weeks;betterindicatedbyhighervalues)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious
indirect-
ness2
Noserious
imprecision
None
440443-
MD21.2
lower(43.3
lowerto0.9
higher)6
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
IMPORTANT
Drugresistance(follow-up96weeks)reportedasmajorPImutation
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious
indirect-
ness2
Serious3None
1/440
(2.3%)
0/443
(1.8%)
RR1.26
(0.5to3.16)
5moreper
1000(from
9fewerto
39more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT
1 Open-labelstudy,sponsoredbyindustry.Notdowngradedforbeingopen-labelunlessoutcomeis“severeadverseevents”or“adherence”wherenon-blinded
treatmentcouldbiasoutcome.
2 StudyevaluatesART-naivepopulation,whichisindirectpopulationfromPI-naivepatientswhowouldusePIinsecond-linetherapyafterfailureonNNRTI-
basedregimen.
3 Lownumberofevents,<300andCIindicatespotentialforappreciablebenefitandharm.
4 Reportedas,“seriousadverseevents”.Ofnote,evensubjectsdiscontinuedbecauseofdiarrhoeainLPV/rarmand3subjectsdiscontinuedbecauseof
jaundice/hyperbilirubinaemiainATV/rarm.
5 ITTanalysiswherenon-completerorrebound=failure(TLOVR).At48weekoutcomes,numbersforTLOVRandconfirmedvirologicalresponse(CVR)were
similar:forATV/r343/440andLPV/r338/443(CVR)comparedtoATV/r343/440andLPV/r337/443(TOLVR).CVRclassifiesrebounderswhoareresuppressed
asresponders.TLOVRclassifiesresponseas2measurements:<50copies/mlandmaintained(withoutdiscontinuationorrebound).
6 MeanincreasefrombaselineofCD4cellcountsimilarbetweengroups:268cells/µlinATV/rversus290cells/µlinLPV/rgroupat96weeks.

122
Question: Shoulddarunavir/ritonavirvs.lopinavir/ritonavirbeusedforpatientsfailingfirst-linetherapy?
Settings:
Bibliography: MillsAM,NelsonM,JayaweeraD,etal.Once-dailydarunavir/ritonavirvs.lopinavir/ritonavirintreatment-naive,HIV-1-
infectedpatients:96weekanalysis.AIDS2009;23:1679-88.
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.
of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
Darunavir/
ritonavir
Lopinavir/
ritonavir
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious
indirect-
ness3
Serious2None
1/343
(0.3%)
5/346
(1.4%)
RR0.2
(0.02to
1.72)
12fewer
per1000
(from14
fewerto10
more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Severeadverseevents(follow-up96weeks)4
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious
indirect-
ness3
Noserious
imprecision
None
34/343
(9.9%)
55/346
(15.9%)
RR0.62
(0.42to
0.93)
60fewer
per1000
(from11
fewerto92
fewer)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
0-------CRITICAL
Adherence/tolerability/retention(follow-up96weeks;reportedasretention,numberstillonrandomizedstudydrug5)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious
indirect-
ness3
Noserious
imprecision
None
284/343
(82.8%)
265/346
(76.6%)
RR1.08(1
to1.17)
61more
per1000
(from0
moreto130
more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
IMPORTANT

123
Virologicalresponse,proportionHIV-1RNA<50copies/ml(follow-up96weeks)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious
indirect-
ness3
Noserious
imprecision
None
271/343
(79%)
246/346
(71.1%)
RR1.11
(1.02to
1.21)
78more
per1000
(from14
moreto149
more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
IMPORTANT
Immunologicalresponse(follow-up96weeks;betterindicatedbyhighervalues)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious
indirect-
ness3
Noserious
imprecision
None
343346-
Not
estimable6
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
IMPORTANT
Drugresistance(follow-up96weeks),reportedasacquiredmajorPImutation
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious
indirect-
ness3
Serious2None
0/343(0%)0/346(0%)-
Not
estimable7
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT
1 Open-label,industry-sponsoredstudy.Downgradedforbeingopen-labelstudyforoutcomeofsevereadverseeventsbutnotothers.
2 Lownumberofevents<300andCIindicatespotentialforbenefitandharm.
3 Evaluationintreatment-naivepatientsisanindirectmeasureofPI-naivepatientswhowoulduseboostedPIinsecond-linetherapyafterfailureofNNRTI-based
regimen.
4 Reportedas“AnyseriousAE”.For“AnyAEleadingtowithdrawal,”therewere19/343inDRV/rarmand35/346inLPV/rarm.
5 Inposthocanalysisbyself-reportedadherence,thoseadherent(>95%adherence)hadsimilarVLresponse(<50copies/ml)ratesinbotharms(82and78%
inDRV/randLPV/r,respectively).Forthosesuboptimallyadherent(<95%),VLresponse76%inDRV/rarmcomparedto53%inLPV/rarm(p<0.0001).
6 MedianchangefrombaselineinCD4cellcountwas188cells/µlinLPV/rgroupand171cells/µlinDRV/rgroup.
7 NomajorPImutationswerefoundamongthosewithVL>50copies/mlwhohadbaselineandend-pointgenotypes.

124
Question: Shouldfos-amprenavir/ritonavirvs.lopinavir/ritonavirbeusedforpatientsfailingfirst-linetherapy?
Settings:
Bibliography: EronJ,YeniP,GatheJetal.TheKLEANstudyoffosamprenavir-ritonavirversuslopinavir-ritonavir,eachincombination
withabacavir-lamivudine,forinitialtreatmentofHIVinfectionover48weeks:arandomisednon-inferioritytrial.Lancet
2006;368:476-82.
Qualityassessment
Summaryoffindings
Importance
No.ofpatientsEffect
Quality
No.
of
stud-
ies
DesignLimitations
Inconsis-
tency
Indirect-
ness
Impreci-
sion
Other
consider-
ations
Fosampre-
navir/
ritonavir
Lopinavir/
ritonavir
Relative
(95%CI)
Absolute
Mortality(follow-upmedian48weeks)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
4/443
(0.9%)
1/444
(0.2%)
RR4.01
(0.45to
35.73)
7moreper
1000(from
1fewerto
78more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Severeadverseevents(follow-upmedian48weeks;adverseeventsleadingtodiscontinuation)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
53/436
(12.2%)
43/443
(9.7%)
RR1.25
(0.86to
1.83)
24more
per1000
(from14
fewerto81
more)
⊕OOO
VERYLOW
CRITICAL
Clinicaldiseaseprogressionordeath(follow-upmedian48weeks)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
11/443
(2.5%)
11/444
(2.5%)
RR1(0.44
to2.29)
0fewerper
1000(from
14fewerto
32more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL
Adherence/tolerability/retention(follow-upmedian48weeks;adherencebypillcountsreportedasmedianpercentage)
1Random-
izedtrials
Serious1Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious2Noserious
imprecision
None
427/443
(96.4%)
435/444
(98%)
RR0.98
(0.96to
1.01)
20fewer
per1000
(from39
fewerto10
more)
⊕⊕OO
LOW
CRITICAL

125
Immunologicalresponse(follow-upmedian48weeks;measuredwith:medianincreaseinCD4countfrombaseline;betterindicatedbyhighervalues)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious2Noserious
imprecision
None
443444-
Not
estimable4
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
IMPORTANT
Virologicalresponse,proportion<50copies/ml(follow-upmedian48weeks)
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
Serious2Noserious
imprecision
None
285/443
(64.3%)
288/444
(64.9%)
RR0.99
(0.9to1.09)
6fewerper
1000(from
65fewerto
58more)
⊕⊕⊕O
MODER-
ATE
IMPORTANT
Drugresistance(follow-upmedian48weeks),reportedasacquiredmajorPImutations
1Random-
izedtrials
Noserious
limitations1
Noserious
inconsis-
tency
0/443(0%)0/444(0%)-
Not
estimable5
⊕⊕OO
LOW
IMPORTANT
1 Open-labelstudy;sponsoredbyindustry.Notdowngradedforthisotherthanforsevereadverseeventsandadherence,whichmaybesubjecttobiasinopen-
labelstudy.
2 EvaluatescomparisoninART-naivepopulation,whichisindirecttoPI-naivepopulationsstartingPI-basedsecond-linetherapyafterNNRTIfirst-line.
3 Lownumberofevents<300andCIindicatespotentialforappreciablebenefitandharm.
4 MedianincreaseinCD4frombaseline176cells/µl(IQR106-281)inFPV/rgroupand191cells/µl(IQR124-287)inLPV/rgroup
5 NomajorPIassociatedmutationsineitherarmamongthe35patientswhohadprotocol-definedfailureandbaselineandend-pointgenotypesavailable.

126
1. WHO. Antiretroviral treatment working group treatment white paper. 2010.
2. Siegfried NL, Uthman OA, Rutherford GW. Optimal time for initiation of antiretroviral
therapy for asymptomatic, HIV-infected, treatment-naive adults. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews 2010. 2010(Issue 2 (In press)).
3. Severe P, Pape J, Fitzgerald D, et al. A randomized clinical trial of early versus standard
antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected patients with a CD4 cell count of 200-350 cells/mm3
(CIPRATH-001). 49th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherpy,
San Fransisco, 2009.
4. Emery S, Neuhaus JA, Phillips AN, Babiker A, Cohen CJ, Gatell JM, et al. Major clinical
outcomes in antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive participants and in those not receiving ART
at baseline in the SMART study. J Infect Dis 2008;197(8):1133-44.
5. Sterne JA, May M, Costagliola D, de Wolf F, Phillips AN, Harris R, et al. Timing of initiation
of antiretroviral therapy in AIDS-free HIV-1-infected patients: a collaborative analysis of 18
HIV cohort studies. Lancet 2009;373(9672):1352-63.
6. Moh R, Danel C, Messou E, Ouassa T, Gabillard D, Anzian A, et al. Incidence and
determinants of mortality and morbidity following early antiretroviral therapy initiation in
HIV-infected adults in West Africa. AIDS 2007;21(18):2483-91.
7. Badri M, Bekker LG, Orrell C, Pitt J, Cilliers F, Wood R. Initiating highly active antiretroviral
therapy in sub-Saharan Africa: an assessment of the revised World Health Organization
scaling-up guidelines. AIDS 2004;18(8):1159-68.
8. Wong KH, Chan KC, Cheng KL, Chan WK, Kam KM, Lee SS. Establishing CD4 thresholds
for highly active antiretroviral therapy initiation in a cohort of HIV-infected adult Chinese in
Hong Kong. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2007;21(2):106-15.
9. UNAIDS. Cost estimates: AIDS financing and economics. 2009.
10. Granich RM, Gilks CF, Dye C, De Cock KM, Williams BG. Universal voluntary HIV testing
with immediate antiretroviral therapy as a strategy for elimination of HIV transmission: a
mathematical model. Lancet 2009 Jan 3;373(9657):48-57.
11. Danel C, Moh R, Minga A, Anzian A, Ba-Gomis O, Kanga C, et al. CD4-guided structured
antiretroviral treatment interruption strategy in HIV-infected adults in west Africa (Trivacan
ANRS 1269 trial): a randomised trial. Lancet 2006;367(9527):1981-9.
12. Havlir DV, Getahun H, Sanne I, Nunn P. Opportunities and challenges for HIV care in
overlapping HIV and TB epidemics. JAMA 2008;300(4):423-30.
13. Lawn SD, Churchyard G. Epidemiology of HIV-associated tuberculosis. Curr Opin HIV
AIDS 2009;4(4):325-33.
14. Hammer SM, Eron JJ, Jr., Reiss P, Schooley RT, Thompson MA, Walmsley S, et al.
Antiretroviral treatment of adult HIV infection: 2008 recommendations of the International
AIDS Society-USA panel. JAMA 2008;300(5):555-70.
22. References

127
15. Gange SJ, Kitahata MM, Saag MS, Bangsberg DR, Bosch RJ, Brooks JT, et al. Cohort
profile: the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-
ACCORD). Int J Epidemiol 2007;36(2):294-301.
16. Ngoma D, Makombe SD, Kamoto K, Harries AD. World Health Organization Clinical Stage
3 disease conditions in HIV-infected patients who start antiretroviral therapy in Malawi.
Trop Doct 2008;38(3):159-60.
17. Teck R, Ascurra O, Gomani P, Manzi M, Pasulani O, Kusamale J, et al. WHO clinical staging
of HIV infection and disease, tuberculosis and eligibility for antiretroviral treatment:
relationship to CD4 lymphocyte counts. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2005;9(3):258-62.
18. Edathodu J, Ali B, Alrajhi AA. CD4 validation for the World Health Organization classification
and clinical staging of HIV/AIDS in a developing country. Int J Infect Dis 2009;13(2):243-6.
19. Kassa E, Rinke de Wit TF, Hailu E, Girma M, Messele T, Mariam HG, et al. Evaluation of the
World Health Organization staging system for HIV infection and disease in Ethiopia:
association between clinical stages and laboratory markers. AIDS 1999;13(3):381-9.
20. Annam V, Yelikar BR, Inamadar AC, Palit A. Histopathological study of pruritic papular
eruptions in HIV-infected patients in relationship with CD4, CD8 counts. Indian J Pathol
Microbiol 2009;52(3):321-4.
21. Lakshmi SJ, Rao GR, Rao KA, Prasad PG, Kumar YH. Pruritic papular eruptions of HIV: a
clinicopathologic and therapeutic study. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2008;74(5):501-
3.
22. WHO. Guidance on provider-initiated HIV testing and counselling in health facilities. 2007.
23. Hoffmann CJ, Charalambous S, Sim J, Ledwaba J, Schwikkard G, Chaisson RE, et al.
Viremia, resuppression, and time to resistance in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
subtype C during first-line antiretroviral therapy in South Africa. Clin Infect Dis
2009;49(12):1928-35.
24. Amin J, Moore A, Carr A, French MA, Law M, Emery S, et al. Combined analysis of two-
year follow-up from two open-label randomized trials comparing efficacy of three
nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbones for previously untreated HIV-1
infection: OzCombo 1 and 2. HIV clinical trials 2003;4(4):252-61.
25. French M, Amin J, Roth N, Carr A, Law M, Emery S, et al. Randomized, open-label,
comparative trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three antiretroviral drug combinations
including two nucleoside analogues and nevirapine for previously untreated HIV-1
Infection: the OzCombo 2 study. HIV clinical trials 2002;3(3):177-85.
26. Eron JJ, Jr., Murphy RL, Peterson D, Pottage J, Parenti DM, Jemsek J, et al. A comparison
of stavudine, didanosine and indinavir with zidovudine, lamivudine and indinavir for the
initial treatment of HIV-1 infected individuals: selection of thymidine analog regimen
therapy (START II). AIDS 2000;14(11):1601-10.

128
27. Gathe J, Jr., Badaro R, Grimwood A, Abrams L, Klesczewski K, Cross A, et al. Antiviral
activity of enteric-coated didanosine, stavudine, and nelfinavir versus zidovudine plus
lamivudine and nelfinavir. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002;31(4):399-403.
28. Carr A, Chuah J, Hudson J, French M, Hoy J, Law M, et al. A randomised, open-label
comparison of three highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens including two nucleoside
analogues and indinavir for previously untreated HIV-1 infection: the OzCombo1 study.
AIDS 2000;14(9):1171-80.
29. Geijo Martínez MP MMM, Solera Santos J, Barberá Farré JR, Rodríguez Zapata M, Marcos
Sánchez F, Martínez Alfaro E, Cuadra García-Tenorio F, Sanz Moreno J, Moreno Mendaña
JM, Beato Pérez JL, Sanz Sanz J; GECMEI. Ensayo clínico comparativo de eficacia y
seguridad de cuatro pautas de tratamiento antirretroviral de alta eficacia (TARGA) en
pacientes con infección por VIH avanzada [Test comparative clinical efficacy and safety of
four treatment guidelines highly active antiretroviral (TARGA) in patients with advanced
HIV infection]. Rev Clin Esp 2006;206:67-76.
30. Kumar PN, Rodriguez-French A, Thompson MA, Tashima KT, Averitt D, Wannamaker PG,
et al. A prospective, 96-week study of the impact of Trizivir, Combivir/nelfinavir, and
lamivudine/stavudine/nelfinavir on lipids, metabolic parameters and efficacy in
antiretroviral-naive patients: effect of sex and ethnicity. HIV Med 2006;7(2):85-98.
31. Li T, Dai Y, Kuang J, Jiang J, Han Y, Qiu Z, et al. Three generic nevirapine-based antiretroviral
treatments in Chinese HIV/AIDS patients: multicentric observation cohort. PLoS ONE
2008;3(12):e3918.
32. Robbins GK, De Gruttola V, Shafer RW, Smeaton LM, Snyder SW, Pettinelli C, et al.
Comparison of sequential three-drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection. N Engl
J Med 2003;349(24):2293-303.
33. Squires KE, Gulick R, Tebas P, Santana J, Mulanovich V, Clark R, et al. A comparison of
stavudine plus lamivudine versus zidovudine plus lamivudine in combination with indinavir
in antiretroviral naive individuals with HIV infection: selection of thymidine analog regimen
therapy (START I). AIDS 2000;14(11):1591-600.
34. The Adult Antiretroviral Treatment and Resistance Study Tshepo [database on the Internet]
2009 [cited November 11, 2009]. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/
NCT00197613?term=Tshepo&rank=1.
35. 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(2):191-201.
36. Rey D, Hoen B, Chavanet P, Schmitt MP, Hoizey G, Meyer P, et al. High rate of early
virological failure with the once-daily tenofovir/lamivudine/nevirapine combination in naive
HIV-1-infected patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009;63(2):380-8.

129
37. Arribas JR, Pozniak AL, Gallant JE, Dejesus E, Gazzard B, Campo RE, et al. Tenofovir
disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz compared with zidovudine/lamivudine
and efavirenz in treatment-naive patients: 144-week analysis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr
2008;47(1):74-8.
38. Lapadula G, Costarelli S, Quiros-Roldan E, Calabresi A, Izzo I, Carosi G, et al. Risk of early
virological failure of once-daily tenofovir-emtricitabine plus twice-daily nevirapine in
antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-infected patients. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46(7):1127-9.
39. Towner W, Kerrigan HL, LaRivière M, et al. eds. Efficacy of a once-daily regimen of
nevirapine(NVP), lamivudine (3TC) and tenofovir (TDF) in treatment-naive HIV-infected
patients: a pilot study. Seventh International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection;
2004.
40. Vicente Soriano SK, Horacio Migrone et al, editors. Prospective randomised comparison of
nevirapine and atazanavir/ritonavir both combined with tenofovir DF/emtricitabine in
treatment-naive HIV-1 infected patients: ARTEN Study, week 48 results. 5th IAS Conference
on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention; 19-22 July 2009; Cape Town, South
Africa.
41. Alexandra Calmy AN, J Lange, M Battegay, F de Wolf, P Reiss, B Hirschel, F Wit, and for
the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and the Netherlands ATHENA Observational Cohort, eds.
Nevirapine administered once daily is as efficient as a twice-daily dosing. A collaborative
cohort study. 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infecions; 2009; Boston.
42. Havlir DV, Koelsch KK, Strain MC, Margot N, Lu B, Ignacio CC, et al. Predictors of residual
viremia in HIV-infected patients successfully treated with efavirenz and lamivudine plus
either tenofovir or stavudine. J Infect Dis 2005;191(7):1164-8.
43. Lodwick RK, Smith CJ, Youle M, Lampe FC, Tyrer M, Bhagani S, et al. Stability of
antiretroviral regimens in patients with viral suppression. AIDS 2008;22(9):1039-46.
44. Willig JH, Abroms S, Westfall AO, Routman J, Adusumilli S, Varshney M, et al. Increased
regimen durability in the era of once-daily fixed-dose combination antiretroviral therapy.
AIDS 2008;22(15):1951-60.
45. Mocroft A, Phillips AN, Ledergerber B, Katlama C, Chiesi A, Goebel FD, et al. Relationship
between antiretrovirals used as part of a cART regimen and CD4 cell count increases in
patients with suppressed viremia. AIDS 2006;20(8):1141-50.
46. Wolbers M, Battegay M, Hirschel B, Furrer H, Cavassini M, Hasse B, et al. CD4+ T-cell
count increase in HIV-1-infected patients with suppressed viral load within 1 year after start
of antiretroviral therapy. Antivir Ther 2007;12(6):889-97.
47. Sanchez-de la Rosa R, Herrera L, Moreno S. Cost-effectiveness analysis of emtricitabine/
tenofovir versus lamivudine/zidovudine, in combination with efavirenz, in antiretroviral-
naive, HIV-1-infected patients. Clin Ther 2008;30(2):372-81.

130
48. Fernandez Lison LC. PDLLE, Hevia Alonso A, Garrido Martinez MT, Bocanegra Martin C.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of tenofovir versus zidovudine in combination therapy with
efavirenz and lamivudine for the treatment of HIV in naive patients. Farmacia Hospitalaria
2005(29):11-7.
49. Ayala Gaytan JJ dlGE, Garcia MC, Chavez SBV. Nevirapine or efavirenz in combination
with two nucleoside analogues in HIV infected antiretroviral naïve patients. Med Intern Mex
2004;20:24.
50. Manosuthi W, Sungkanuparph S, Tantanathip P, Lueangniyomkul A, Mankatitham W,
Prasithsirskul W, et al. A randomized trial comparing plasma drug concentrations and
efficacies between 2 nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-based regimens in
HIV-infected patients receiving rifampicin: the N2R Study. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48(12):1752-
9.
51. Nuñez M, Soriano V, Martin-Carbonero L, Barrios A, Barreiro P, Blanco F, et al. SENC
(Spanish efavirenz vs. nevirapine comparison) trial: a randomized, open-label study in
HIV-infected naive individuals. HIV clinical trials 2002;3(3):186-94.
52. Sow PG BM, Diallo PD, Lo I, Ndiaye B, Gaye AM, editor. Efficacy and safety of
lamivudine+zidovudine+efavirenz and lamivudine+zidovudine+névirapine in treatment
HIV1 infected patients. A retrospective cross study analysis. XVI International AIDS
Conference; 13-18 August 2006: Toronto, Canada.
53. van den Berg-Wolf M, Hullsiek KH, Peng G, Kozal MJ, Novak RM, Chen L, et al. Virologic,
immunologic, clinical, safety, and resistance outcomes from a long-term comparison of
efavirenz-based versus nevirapine-based antiretroviral regimens as initial therapy in HIV-
1-infected persons. HIV clinical trials 2008;9(5):324-36.
54. van Leth F, Phanuphak P, Ruxrungtham K, Baraldi E, Miller S, Gazzard B, et al. Comparison
of first-line antiretroviral therapy with regimens including nevirapine, efavirenz, or both
drugs, plus stavudine and lamivudine: a randomised open-label trial, the 2NN Study.
Lancet 2004;363(9417):1253-63.
55. Clinicaltrials.gov. Comparison of nevirapine and efavirenz for the treatment of HIV-TB
coInfected patients (ANRS 12146 CARINEMO). 2009; Available from: http://clinicaltrials.
gov/ct2/show/NCT00495326?term=ANRS+12146&rank=1.
56. Evaluation of 4 new simplified antiretroviral treatments in naive HIV-1 infected patients in
Africa (ANRS 12115 DAYANA) [database on the Internet] 2009. Available from: http://
clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00573001?term=DAYANA&rank=1.
57. Rajesh L, Karunaianantham R, Narayanan PR, Swaminathan S. Antiretroviral drug-resistant
mutations at baseline and at time of failure of antiretroviral therapy in HIV type 1-coinfected
TB patients. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2009;25(11):1179-85.
58. Gilead Sciences. Viread prescribing information. 2010 (Revised 03/2010 ).

131
59. Ananworanich J, Moor Z, Siangphoe U, Chan J, Cardiello P, Duncombe C, et al. Incidence
and risk factors for rash in Thai patients randomized to regimens with nevirapine, efavirenz
or both drugs. AIDS 2005;19(2):185-92.
60. Winston A, Pozniak A, Smith N, Fletcher C, Mandalia S, Parmar D, et al. Dose escalation or
immediate full dose when switching from efavirenz to nevirapine-based highly active
antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected individuals? AIDS 2004;18(3):572-4.
61. Laureillard D, Prak N, Fernandez M, Ngeth C, Moeung S, Riel V, et al. Efavirenz replacement
by immediate full-dose nevirapine is safe in HIV-1-infected patients in Cambodia. HIV Med
2008;9(7):514-8.
62. Isaakidis P, Raguenaud ME, Phe T, Khim SA, Kuoch S, Khem S, et al. Evaluation of a
systematic substitution of zidovudine for stavudine-based HAART in a program setting in
rural Cambodia. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2008;49(1):48-54.
63. Ssali F, Stohr W, Munderi P, Reid A, Walker AS, Gibb DM, et al. Prevalence, incidence and
predictors of severe anaemia with zidovudine-containing regimens in African adults with
HIV infection within the DART trial. Antivir Ther 2006;11(6):741-9.
64. Amoroso A. Antiretroviral-associated drug toxicities leading to a switch in medication:
Experience in Uganda, Kenya, and Zambia. 14th Conference on Retroviruses and
Opportunistic Infections (CROI); 25-28 February 2007; Los Angeles, USA.
65. Fatu F, editor. Hematologic changes associated with zidovudine after single-drug substitution
from stavudine in a home-based AIDS care program in rural Uganda. 15th 15th Conference
on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 3-6 February 2008; Boston, USA.
66. Bannister WP, Ruiz L, Cozzi-Lepri A, Mocroft A, Kirk O, Staszewski S, et al. Comparison of
genotypic resistance profiles and virological response between patients starting nevirapine
and efavirenz in EuroSIDA. AIDS 2008;22(3):367-76.
67. Hitti J, Frenkel LM, Stek AM, Nachman SA, Baker D, Gonzalez-Garcia A, et al. Maternal
toxicity with continuous nevirapine in pregnancy: results from PACTG 1022. J Acquir
Immune Defic Syndr 2004;36(3):772-6.
68. Jamisse L, Balkus J, Hitti J, Gloyd S, Manuel R, Osman N, et al. Antiretroviral-associated
toxicity among HIV-1-seropositive pregnant women in Mozambique receiving nevirapine-
based regimens. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007;44(4):371-6.
69. Mocroft A, Staszewski S, Weber R, Gatell J, Rockstroh J, Gasiorowski J, et al. Risk of
discontinuation of nevirapine due to toxicities in antiretroviral-naive and -experienced HIV-
infected patients with high and low CD4+ T-cell counts. Antivir Ther 2007;12(3):325-33.
70. Lyons F, Hopkins S, Kelleher B, McGeary A, Sheehan G, Geoghegan J, et al. Maternal
hepatotoxicity with nevirapine as part of combination antiretroviral therapy in pregnancy.
HIV Med 2006;7(4):255-60.

132
71. Kiertiburanakul S, Sungkanuparph S, Charoenyingwattana A, Mahasirimongkol S, Sura T,
Chantratita W. Risk factors for nevirapine-associated rash among HIV-infected patients
with low CD4 cell counts in resource-limited settings. Curr HIV Res 2008;6(1):65-9.
72. Taiwo BO. Nevirapine toxicity. Int J STD AIDS 2006;17(6):364-9.
73. Knobel H, Guelar A, Montero M, Carmona A, Luque S, Berenguer N, et al. Risk of side
effects associated with the use of nevirapine in treatment-naive patients, with respect to
gender and CD4 cell count. HIV Med 2008;9(1):14-8.
74. Kondo W, Carraro EA, Prandel E, Dias JM, Perini J, Macedo RL, et al. Nevirapine-induced
side effects in pregnant women: experience of a Brazilian university hospital. Braz J Infect
Dis 2007;11(6):544-8.
75. Bonjoch A, Paredes R, Domingo P, Cervantes M, Pedrol E, Ribera E, et al. Long-term
safety and efficacy of nevirapine-based approaches in HIV type 1-infected patients. AIDS
Res Hum Retroviruses 2006;22(4):321-9.
76. De Lazzari E, Leon A, Arnaiz JA, Martinez E, Knobel H, Negredo E, et al. Hepatotoxicity of
nevirapine in virologically suppressed patients according to gender and CD4 cell counts.
HIV Med 2008;9(4):221-6.
77. Torti C, Costarelli S, De Silvestri A, Quiros-Roldan E, Lapadula G, Cologni G, et al. Analysis
of severe hepatic events associated with nevirapine-containing regimens: CD4+ T-cell
count and gender in hepatitis C seropositive and seronegative patients. Drug Saf
2007;30(12):1161-9.
78. Manfredi R, Calza L. Nevirapine versus efavirenz in 742 patients: no link of liver toxicity with
female sex, and a baseline CD4 cell count greater than 250 cells/microl. AIDS
2006;20(17):2233-6.
79. Manfredi R, Calza L. Safety issues about nevirapine administration in HIV-infected pregnant
women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007;45(3):365-8.
80. Phanuphak N, Apornpong T, Teeratakulpisarn S, Chaithongwongwatthana S,
Taweepolcharoen C, Mangclaviraj S, et al. Nevirapine-associated toxicity in HIV-infected
Thai men and women, including pregnant women. HIV Med 2007;8(6):357-66.
81. Kumarasamy N, Venkatesh KK, Devaleenal B, Palanivel V, Cecelia AJ, Muthu S, et al.
Safety of switching to nevirapine-based highly active antiretroviral therapy at elevated CD4
cell counts in a resource-constrained setting. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007;45(5):598-
600.
82. Wit FW, Kesselring AM, Gras L, Richter C, van der Ende ME, Brinkman K, et al.
Discontinuation of nevirapine because of hypersensitivity reactions in patients with prior
treatment experience, compared with treatment-naive patients: the ATHENA cohort study.
Clin Infect Dis 2008;46(6):933-40.

133
83. Baylor MS, Johann-Liang R. Hepatotoxicity associated with nevirapine use. J Acquir
84. Feinberg J. Report from the 16th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.
Lopinavir/r is superior to nevirapine in women who previously received single-dose
nevirapine. AIDS Clin Care 2009;21(4):33.
85. Sax PE, Gallant JE, Klotman PE. Renal safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. AIDS Read
2007;17(2):90-2,9-104,C3.
86. Roling J, Schmid H, Fischereder M, Draenert R, Goebel FD. HIV-associated renal diseases
and highly active antiretroviral therapy-induced nephropathy. Clin Infect Dis
2006;42(10):1488-95.
87. Cassetti I, Madruga JV, Suleiman JM, Etzel A, Zhong L, Cheng AK, et al. The safety and
efficacy of tenofovir DF in combination with lamivudine and efavirenz through 6 years in
antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients. HIV clinical trials 2007;8(3):164-72.
88. Nurutdinova D, Onen NF, Hayes E, Mondy K, Overton ET. Adverse effects of tenofovir use
in HIV-infected pregnant women and their infants. Ann Pharmacother 2008;42(11):1581-5.
89. WHO, UNAIDS and UNICEF. Towards universal access: Scaling up of priority HIV/AIDS
interventions in the health sector: Progress report 2009 [cited 2009 Nov 11, 2009]:
Available from: http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/2009progressreport/en/.
90. Gallant JE, DeJesus E, Arribas JR, Pozniak AL, Gazzard B, Campo RE, et al. Tenofovir DF,
emtricitabine, and efavirenz vs. zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz for HIV. N Engl J
Med 2006;354(3):251-60.
91. Subbaraman R, Chaguturu SK, Mayer KH, Flanigan TP, Kumarasamy N. Adverse effects of
highly active antiretroviral therapy in developing countries. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45(8):1093-
101.
92. McComsey G, Lonergan JT. Mitochondrial dysfunction: patient monitoring and toxicity
management. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004;37 Suppl 1:S30-5.
93. Hawkins C, Achenbach C, Fryda W, Ngare D, Murphy R. Antiretroviral durability and
tolerability in HIV-infected adults living in urban Kenya. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr
2007;45(3):304-10.
94. van Griensven J, Zachariah R, Rasschaert F, Mugabo J, Atte EF, Reid T. Stavudine- and
nevirapine-related drug toxicity while on generic fixed-dose antiretroviral treatment:
incidence, timing and risk factors in a three-year cohort in Kigali, Rwanda. Trans R Soc
Trop Med Hyg 2010; 104(2): 148-53.
95. Kallianpur AR, Hulgan T. Pharmacogenetics of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-
associated peripheral neuropathy. Pharmacogenomics 2009;10(4):623-37.

134
96. van Griensven J, De Naeyer L, Mushi T, Ubarijoro S, Gashumba D, Gazille C, et al. High
prevalence of lipoatrophy among patients on stavudine-containing first-line antiretroviral
therapy regimens in Rwanda. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2007;101(8):793-8.
97. Mutimura E, Stewart A, Rheeder P, Crowther NJ. Metabolic function and the prevalence of
lipodystrophy in a population of HIV-infected African subjects receiving highly active
antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007;46(4):451-5.
98. Geddes R, Knight S, Moosa MY, Reddi A, Uebel K, Sunpath H. A high incidence of
nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-induced lactic acidosis in HIV-infected
patients in a South African context. S Afr Med J 2006;96(8):722-4.
99. WHO. Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and adolescents:Recommendations
for a public health approach. 2006. Available from: http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/guidelines/
artadultguidelines.pdf.
100. Tai JH, Udoji MA, Barkanic G, Byrne DW, Rebeiro PF, Byram BR, et al. Pregnancy and HIV
disease progression during the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. J Infect Dis
2007;196(7):1044-52.
101. The antiretroviral pregnancy registry [database on the Internet]. Antiretroviral Pregnancy
Registry Steering Committee. 2009. Available from: http://www.apregistry.com/forms/
interim_report.pdf.
102. Peltier CA, Ndayisaba GF, Lepage P, van Griensven J, Leroy V, Pharm CO, et al.
Breastfeeding with maternal antiretroviral therapy or formula feeding to prevent HIV
postnatal mother-to-child transmission in Rwanda. AIDS 2009;23(18):2415-23.
103. Ouyang DW, Shapiro DE, Lu M, Brogly SB, French AL, Leighty RM, et al. Increased risk of
hepatotoxicity in HIV-infected pregnant women receiving antiretroviral therapy independent
of nevirapine exposure. AIDS 2009;23(18):2425-30.
104. Musoke P, Guay LA, Bagenda D, Mirochnick M, Nakabiito C, Fleming T, et al. A phase I/II
study of the safety and pharmacokinetics of nevirapine in HIV-1-infected pregnant
Ugandan women and their neonates (HIVNET 006). AIDS 1999;13(4):479-86.
105. Kunz A, Frank M, Mugenyi K, Kabasinguzi R, Weidenhammer A, Kurowski M, et al.
Persistence of nevirapine in breast milk and plasma of mothers and their children after
single-dose administration. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009;63(1):170-7.
106. Muro E, Droste JA, Hofstede HT, Bosch M, Dolmans W, Burger DM. Nevirapine plasma
concentrations are still detectable after more than 2 weeks in the majority of women
receiving single-dose nevirapine: implications for intervention studies. J Acquir Immune
Defic Syndr 2005;39(4):419-21.
107. Ribaudo HJ, Haas DW, Tierney C, Kim RB, Wilkinson GR, Gulick RM, et al. Pharmacogenetics
of plasma efavirenz exposure after treatment discontinuation: an Adult AIDS Clinical Trials
Group Study. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42(3):401-7.

135
108. Arrive E, Kyabayinze DJ, Marquis B, Tumwesigye N, Kieffer MP, Azondekon A, et al. Cohort
profile: the paediatric antiretroviral treatment programmes in lower-income countries
(KIDS-ART-LINC) collaboration. Int J Epidemiol 2008;37(3):474-80.
109. Flys TS, Mwatha A, Guay LA, Nakabiito C, Donnell D, Musoke P, et al. Detection of K103N
in Ugandan women after repeated exposure to single dose nevirapine. AIDS
2007;21(15):2077-82.
110. Flys TS, Donnell D, Mwatha A, Nakabiito C, Musoke P, Mmiro F, et al. Persistence of K103N-
containing HIV-1 variants after single-dose nevirapine for prevention of HIV-1 mother-to-
child transmission. J Infect Dis 2007;195(5):711-5.
111. Wind-Rotolo M, Durand C, Cranmer L, Reid A, Martinson N, Doherty M, et al. Identification
of nevirapine-resistant HIV-1 in the latent reservoir after single-dose nevirapine to prevent
mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1. J Infect Dis 2009;199(9):1301-9.
112. Coovadia H. Current issues in prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1. Curr
Opin HIV AIDS 2009;4(4):319-24.
113. Coovadia A, Hunt G, Abrams EJ, Sherman G, Meyers T, Barry G, et al. Persistent minority
K103N mutations among women exposed to single-dose nevirapine and virologic
response to nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-based therapy. Clin Infect Dis
2009;48(4):462-72.
114. Lockman S, Shapiro RL, Smeaton LM, Wester C, Thior I, Stevens L, et al. Response to
antiretroviral therapy after a single, peripartum dose of nevirapine. N Engl J Med
2007;356(2):135-47.
115. Lockman S, McIntyre JA. Reduction of HIV-1 drug resistance after intrapartum single-dose
nevirapine. Lancet 2007;370(9600):1668-70.
116. Chi BH, Sinkala M, Stringer EM, Cantrell RA, Mtonga V, Bulterys M, et al. Early clinical and
immune response to NNRTI-based antiretroviral therapy among women with prior exposure
to single-dose nevirapine. AIDS 2007;21(8):957-64.
117. Lockman S, editor. Lopinavir/ritonavir + tenofovir/emtricitabine is superior to nevirapine +
tenofovir/emtricitabine for women with prior exposure to single-dose nevirapine: A5208
(“Octane”). 16th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 8-11 February
2009; Montreal, Canada.
118. Coffie PA, Ekouevi DK, Chaix ML, Tonwe-Gold B, Clarisse AB, Becquet R, et al. Maternal
12-month response to antiretroviral therapy following prevention of mother-to-child
transmission of HIV type 1, Ivory Coast, 2003-2006. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46(4):611-21.
119. Kuhn L, Semrau K, Ramachandran S, Sinkala M, Scott N, Kasonde P, et al. Mortality and
virologic outcomes after access to antiretroviral therapy among a cohort of HIV-infected
women who received single-dose nevirapine in Lusaka, Zambia. J Acquir Immune Defic
Syndr 2009;52(1):132-6.

136
120. McIntyre JA MN, Gray GE, et al. Addition of short course combivir to single-dose viramune
for the prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV-1 can significantly decrease the
subsequent development of maternal and paediatric NNRTI-resistant virus. 3rd International
AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment; 24-27 July 2005; Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
121. Chi BH, Sinkala M, Mbewe F, Cantrell RA, Kruse G, Chintu N, et al. Single-dose tenofovir
and emtricitabine for reduction of viral resistance to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase
inhibitor drugs in women given intrapartum nevirapine for perinatal HIV prevention: an
open-label randomised trial. Lancet 2007;370(9600):1698-705.
122. Van Dyke R JG, Shapiro D, et al. A phase II study of the incidence of nevirapine resistance
mutations in HIV-infected Thai women receiving a single intrapartum dose of NVP followed
by a postpartum tail of ZDV/ddI or ZDV/ddI/LPV/r: IMPAACT P1032. 16th Conference on
Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 8-11 2009; Montreal, Canada. 2009.
123. Farr S NJ, Ng’ombe T, et al. Addition of 7 days of zidovudine + lamivudine to peripartum
single-dose nevirapine effectively reduces nevirapine resistance at 2 and 6 weeks
postpartum in HIV-infected mothers. 16th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic
Infections; 8-11 February 2009; Montreal, Canada.
124. Lallemant M JG, Ngo-Giang-Huong N, et al. Efficacy and safety of 1-month post-partum
zidovudine and didanosine to prevent HIV-1 nevirapine resistance mutations following
Intrapartum single-dose nevirapine. 16th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic
Infections; 8-11 February 2009; Montreal, Canada.
125. Arrive E, Chaix ML, Nerrienet E, Blanche S, Rouzioux C, Coffie PA, et al. Tolerance and viral
resistance after single-dose nevirapine with tenofovir and emtricitabine to prevent vertical
transmission of HIV-1. AIDS 2009;23(7):825-33.
126. Marra F Bruno R, Galastri S eds. GP120 induces directional migration of human hepatic
stellate cells: a link between HIV infection and liver fibrogenesis. Hepatology 2007.
127. Thio CL, Seaberg EC, Skolasky R (Jr), Phair J, Visscher B, Munoz A, et al. HIV-1, hepatitis
B virus, and risk of liver-related mortality in the Multicenter Cohort Study (MACS). Lancet
2002;360(9349):1921-6.
128. Hoffmann CJ, Seaberg EC, Young S, Witt MD, D’Acunto K, Phair J, et al. Hepatitis B and
long-term HIV outcomes in coinfected HAART recipients. AIDS 2009;23(14):1881-9.
129. Matthews GV, Avihingsanon A, Lewin SR, Amin J, Rerknimitr R, Petcharapirat P, et al. A
randomized trial of combination hepatitis B therapy in HIV/HBV coinfected antiretroviral
naive individuals in Thailand. Hepatology 2008;48(4):1062-9.
130. Matthews GV, Seaberg E, Dore GJ, Bowden S, Lewin SR, Sasadeusz J, et al. Combination
HBV therapy is linked to greater HBV DNA suppression in a cohort of lamivudine-
experienced HIV/HBV coinfected individuals. AIDS 2009;23(13):1707-15.

137
131. Baleta A. Trial finds simultaneous HIV/tuberculosis treatment beneficial. Lancet infectious
diseases 2008;8(11):669.
132. Middelkoop, ed. Can antiretoviral therapy contain a previously escalating TB epidemic in a
high HIV prevalemce community. 5th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and
Prevention; 19-22 July 2009; Cape Town, South Africa.
133. Golub JE, Astemborski J, Ahmed M, Cronin W, Mehta SH, Kirk GD, et al. Long-term
effectiveness of diagnosing and treating latent tuberculosis infection in a cohort of HIV-
infected and at-risk injection drug users. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2008;49(5):532-7.
134. Atun RA, Lebcir RM, Drobniewski F, McKee M, Coker RJ. High coverage with HAART is
required to substantially reduce the number of deaths from tuberculosis: system dynamics
simulation. Int J STD AIDS 2007;18(4):267-73.
135. Avihingsanon A, Manosuthi W, Kantipong P, Chuchotaworn C, Moolphate S, Sakornjun W,
et al. Pharmacokinetics and 48-week efficacy of nevirapine: 400 mg versus 600 mg per
day in HIV-tuberculosis coinfection receiving rifampicin. Antivir Ther 2008;13(4):529-36.
136. Chang SY, Lin SW, Hung CC. Do we still need lead-in dosing of nevirapine in HIV-infected
patients who are receiving rifampicin-containing antituberculous therapy? Clin Infect Dis
2009;49(9):1452-3; author reply 1453-4.
137. Cohen K, Meintjes G. Management of individuals requiring antiretroviral therapy and TB
treatment. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2010;5(1):61-9.
138. Bhatt EB, Jani IV, Ciaffi L, Luggli M, Bastos R, Samo Gudo P, D. Arakaki, Michon C, Calmy
A, Bonnet M, and the ANRS 12146 Study Group, editor. Preliminary safety results of co-
administration of nevirapine (NVP) or efavirenz (EFV), and rifampicin (RMP) in HIV-
tuberculosis (TB) co-infected patients in Maputo (Mozambique): CARINEMO-ANRS 12146
Trial. 5th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment; 2009.
139. la Porte CJ, Colbers EP, Bertz R, Voncken DS, Wikstrom K, Boeree MJ, et al.
Pharmacokinetics of adjusted-dose lopinavir-ritonavir combined with rifampin in healthy
volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004;48(5):1553-60.
140. Nijland HM, L’Homme R F, Rongen GA, van Uden P, van Crevel R, Boeree MJ, et al. High
incidence of adverse events in healthy volunteers receiving rifampicin and adjusted doses
of lopinavir/ritonavir tablets. AIDS 2008;22(8):931-5.
141. Rolla VC, da Silva Vieira MA, Pereira Pinto D, Lourenco MC, de Jesus Cda S, Goncalves
Morgado M, et al. Safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of ritonavir 400mg/saquinavir
400mg twice daily plus rifampicin combined therapy in HIV patients with tuberculosis. Clin
Drug Investig 2006;26(8):469-79.
142. L’Homme R F, Nijland HM, Gras L, Aarnoutse RE, van Crevel R, Boeree M, et al. Clinical
experience with the combined use of lopinavir/ritonavir and rifampicin. AIDS 2009;23(7):
863-5.

138
143. WHO. Prioritizing second-line antiretroviral drugs for adults and adolescents: a public
health approach – Report of a WHO working group meeting. Geneva: WHO; 2007.
144. DHHS PoAGfAaADoHaHS. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected
adults and adolescents. 2009: Available from: http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/
AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf.
145. Jenny-Avital ER, Joseph K. Rifamycin-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the highly
active antiretroviral therapy era: a report of 3 relapses with acquired rifampin resistance
following alternate-day rifabutin and boosted protease inhibitor therapy. Clin Infect Dis
2009;48(10):1471-4.
146. Ebraert H, Salu P. Toxic uveitis caused by pharmacodynamic interactions of Rifabutin and
protease inhibitors: a case report. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 2007;(303):57-60.
147. WHO. Operational guide for national tuberculosis control programmes on the introduction
and use of fixed-dose combination drugs. 2002: Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/
hq/2002/WHO_CDS_TB_2002.308.pdf.
148. Coutinho A MJ, Ekwaru J, Were W, R Bunnell, Kaharuza F et al. , editor. Utility of routine
viral load, CD4 cell count, and clinical monitoring among HIV-infected adults in Uganda:
A randomized trial. 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections;
3-6 February 2008; Boston, USA.
149. Mugyenyi P WSHJ, Munderi P, Gibb D, Kityo C, et al., eds. Impact of routine laboratory
monitoring over 5 years after antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation on clinical disease progression
of HIV-infected African adults: the DART trial final results 2009. 5th IAS Conference on HIV
Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention; 19-22 July 2009; Cape Town, South Africa.
150. Wilson D, Keiluhu AK, Kogrum S, Reid T, Seriratana N, Ford N, et al. HIV-1 viral load
monitoring: an opportunity to reinforce treatment adherence in a resource-limited setting
in Thailand. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2009;103(6):601-6.
151. Keiser O, Tweya H, Braitstein P, Dabis F, Macphail P, Boulle A, et al. Mortality after failure
of antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa. Trop Med Int Health 2009; 15:2, 251-258
152. Keiser O, MacPhail P, Boulle A, Wood R, Schechter M, Dabis F, et al. Accuracy of WHO
CD4 cell count criteria for virological failure of antiretroviral therapy. Trop Med Int Health
2009;14(10):1220-5.
153. Phillips AN, Pillay D, Miners AH, Bennett DE, Gilks CF, Lundgren JD. Outcomes from
monitoring of patients on antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings with viral load,
CD4 cell count, or clinical observation alone: a computer simulation model. Lancet
2008;371(9622):1443-51.
154. Murri R, Lepri AC, Cicconi P, Poggio A, Arlotti M, Tositti G, et al. Is moderate HIV viremia
associated with a higher risk of clinical progression in HIV-infected people treated with
highly active antiretroviral therapy: evidence from the Italian cohort of antiretroviral-naive
patients study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2006;41(1):23-30.

139
155. Cozzi Lepri A, Phillips AN, d’Arminio Monforte A, Castelli F, Antinori A, de Luca A, et al.
When to start highly active antiretroviral therapy in chronically HIV-infected patients:
evidence from the ICONA study. AIDS 2001;15(8):983-90.
156. Hosseinipour M, van Oosterhout J, Weigel R, Mzigangira D, Saukila N, Mhango B, Phiri R,
Phiri S, Kumwenda J and the SAFEST 2 study Team. Validating clinical and immunological
definitions of antiretroviral treatment failure in Malawi. 4th IAS Conference on HIV
Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention; 22-25 July 2009; Sydney, Australia.
157. Fox Z, Dragsted UB, Gerstoft J, Phillips AN, Kjaer J, Mathiesen L, et al. A randomized trial
to evaluate continuation versus discontinuation of lamivudine in individuals failing a
lamivudine-containing regimen: the COLATE trial. Antivir Ther 2006;11(6):761-70.
158. Sproat M, Pozniak AL, Peeters M, Winters B, Hoetelmans R, Graham NM, et al. The
influence of the M184V mutation in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase on the virological outcome
of highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens with or without didanosine. Antivir Ther
2005;10(2):357-61.
159. Molina JM, Andrade-Villanueva J, Echevarria J, Chetchotisakd P, Corral J, David N, et al.
Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination
with tenofovir and emtricitabine, for management of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected
patients: 48 week efficacy and safety results of the CASTLE study. Lancet
2008;372(9639):646-55.
160. Ortiz R, Dejesus E, Khanlou H, Voronin E, van Lunzen J, Andrade-Villanueva J, et al.
Efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-
naive HIV-1-infected patients at week 48. AIDS 2008;22(12):1389-97.
161. Mills AM, Nelson M, Jayaweera D, Ruxrungtham K, Cassetti I, Girard PM, et al. Once-daily
darunavir/ritonavir vs. lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients: 96-
week analysis. AIDS 2009;23(13):1679-88.
162. Pulido F, Estrada V, Baril JG, Logue K, Schewe K, Plettenberg A, et al. Long-term efficacy
and safety of fosamprenavir plus ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir in combination with
abacavir/lamivudine over 144 weeks. HIV clinical trials 2009;10(2):76-87.
163. Smith KY, Weinberg WG, Dejesus E, Fischl MA, Liao Q, Ross LL, et al. Fosamprenavir or
atazanavir once daily boosted with ritonavir 100 mg, plus tenofovir/emtricitabine, for the
initial treatment of HIV infection: 48-week results of ALERT. AIDS Res Ther 2008;5:5.
164. Johnson M, Grinsztejn B, Rodriguez C, Coco J, DeJesus E, Lazzarin A, et al. 96-week
comparison of once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir and twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir in patients
with multiple virologic failures. AIDS 2006;20(5):711-8.
165. J Lundgren RP, Worm S, et al. Risk of myocardial infarction with exposure to specific ARV
from the PI, NNRTI, and NRTI drug classes: The D:A:D Study. 16th Conference on
Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 8-11 February 2009: Montreal, Canada.

140
166. S Lang M-KM, Cotte L. Impact of specific NRTI and PI exposure on the risk of myocardial
infarction: A case-control study nested within FHDH ANRSC04. 16th Conference on
Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; Montreal, Canada. 2009.
167. Arribas JR, Pulido F, Delgado R, Lorenzo A, Miralles P, Arranz A, et al. Lopinavir/ritonavir
as single-drug therapy for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression: 48-week results of a
randomized, controlled, open-label, proof-of-concept pilot clinical trial (OK Study). J
Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005;40(3):280-7.
168. Escobar I, Pulido F, Perez E, Arribas JR, Garcia MP, Hernando A. [Pharmacoeconomic
analysis of a maintenance strategy with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in HIV-infected
patients]. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2006;24(8):490-4.
169. Cameron DW, da Silva Barbara A, Arribas Jose R, Myers Robert A, Bellos Nicholaos C,
Gilmore N, et al. A 96/Week Comparison of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Combination Therapy
Followed by Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy versus Efavirenz Combination Therapy. J
Infect Dis 2008;198(2):234-40.
170. Arribas J. JG, G. Fatkenheuer, M. Nelson, N. Clumeck, F. Pulido et al. The MONET trial:
darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy shows non-inferior efficacy to standard HAART, for patients
with HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL at baseline. 5th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis,
Treatment and Prevention; Cape Town. 2009.
171. C Katlama VM, Algarte-Genin M, Duvivier C, Lambert-Niclot S, Girard PM et al. Efficacy of
darunavir/ritonavir as single-drug maintenance therapy in patients with HIV-1 viral
suppression: a randomized open-label non-inferiority trial, MONOI-ANRS 136. 5th IAS
Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention; Cape Town.
172. Delfraissy JF, Flandre P, Delaugerre C, Ghosn J, Horban A, Girard PM, et al. Lopinavir/
ritonavir monotherapy or plus zidovudine and lamivudine in antiretroviral-naive HIV-
infected patients. AIDS 2008;22(3):385-93.
173. Bierman WF, van Agtmael MA, Nijhuis M, Danner SA, Boucher CA. HIV monotherapy with
ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors: a systematic review. AIDS 2009;23(3):279-91.
174. Elliott JH, Lynen L, Calmy A, De Luca A, Shafer RW, Zolfo M, et al. Rational use of
antiretroviral therapy in low-income and middle-income countries: optimizing regimen
sequencing and switching. AIDS 2008;22(16):2053-67.
175. Evaluation of three strategies of second-line antiretroviral treatment in Africa (Dakar –
Bobo-Dioulasso – Yaoundé) (2LADY) [database on the Internet] 2009. Available from:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00928187?term=2LADY&rank=1.
176. Murphy R Sunpath H, Nijhawan A, McLellan M , Kuritzkes D. Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) + 2
nucleoside analogues as second-line ART in Protease-inhibitor naïve adults in South Africa:
Outcomes and adverse effects. 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic
Infections; 3-6 February 2008; Boston, USA..

141
177. M Hull Moore D, Harris M, et al. A lamivudine (3TC)-based backbone in conjunction with a
boosted protease inhibitor (PI) is sufficient to achieve virologic suppression in the presence
of M184V mutations. 49th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and
Chemotherapy; 12-15 September 2009; San Francisco, USA.
178. Imaz A, del Saz SV, Ribas MA, Curran A, Caballero E, Falco V, et al. Raltegravir, etravirine,
and ritonavir-boosted darunavir: a safe and successful rescue regimen for multidrug-
resistant HIV-1 infection. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009;52(3):382-6.
179. Hicks CB, DeJesus E, Sloan LM, Sension MG, Wohl DA, Liao Q, et al. Comparison of once-
daily fos-amprenavir boosted with either 100 or 200 mg of ritonavir, in combination with
abacavir/lamivudine: 96-week results from COL100758. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses
2009;25(4):395-403.
180. Clotet B, Bellos N, Molina JM, Cooper D, Goffard JC, Lazzarin A, et al. Efficacy and safety
of darunavir-ritonavir at week 48 in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection in
POWER 1 and 2: a pooled subgroup analysis of data from two randomised trials. Lancet
2007;369(9568):1169-78.
181. Pozniak A, Opravil M, Beatty G, Hill A, de Bethune MP, Lefebvre E. Effect of baseline viral
susceptibility on response to darunavir/ritonavir versus control protease inhibitors in
treatment-experienced HIV type 1-infected patients: POWER 1 and 2. AIDS Res Hum
Retroviruses 2008;24(10):1275-80.
182. Rachlis A, Clotet B, Baxter J, Murphy R, Lefebvre E. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of
darunavir (TMC114) with low-dose ritonavir in treatment-experienced, hepatitis B or C co-
infected patients in POWER 1 and 3. HIV clinical trials 2007;8(4):213-20.
183. McKeage K, Perry CM, Keam SJ. Darunavir: a review of its use in the management of HIV
infection in adults. Drugs 2009;69(4):477-503.
184. Steigbigel RT, Cooper DA, Kumar PN, Eron JE, Schechter M, Markowitz M, et al. Raltegravir
with optimized background therapy for resistant HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med
2008;359(4):339-54.
185. Cooper DA, Steigbigel RT, Gatell JM, Rockstroh JK, Katlama C, Yeni P, et al. Subgroup and
resistance analyses of raltegravir for resistant HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2008;359(4):
355-65.
186. Schiller DS, Youssef-Bessler M. Etravirine: a second-generation nonnucleoside reverse
transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) active against NNRTI-resistant strains of HIV. Clin Ther
2009;31(4):692-704.
187. Yazdanpanah Y, Fagard C, Descamps D, Taburet AM, Colin C, Roquebert B, et al. High
rate of virologic suppression with raltegravir plus etravirine and darunavir/ritonavir among
treatment-experienced patients infected with multidrug-resistant HIV: results of the ANRS
139 TRIO trial. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49(9):1441-9.

142
188. Llibre JM, Santos JR, Puig T, Molto J, Ruiz L, Paredes R, et al. Prevalence of etravirine-
associated mutations in clinical samples with resistance to nevirapine and efavirenz. J
Antimicrob Chemother 2008;62(5):909-13.
189. Poveda E, Anta L, Blanco JL, Perez-Elias MJ, Garcia F, Leal M, et al. Etravirine resistance
associated mutations in HIV-infected patients failing efavirenz or nevirapine in the Spanish
antiretroviral resistance database. AIDS 2010;;24(3 ):469–71..
190. Geretti AM. Shifting paradigms: the resistance profile of etravirine. J Antimicrob Chemother
2008;62(4):643-7.
191. Sungkanuparph S, Manosuthi W, Kiertiburanakul S, Piyavong B, Chantratita W. Evaluating
he role of etravirine in the second-line antiretroviral therapy after failing an initial non-
nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based regimen in a resource-limited setting.
Curr HIV Res 2008;6(5):474-6.
192. Tibotec Theraputics. Dear Healthcare Professional letter. August 2009; Available from http://
www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForPatientAdvocates/HIVandAIDSActivities/
ucm180480.htm
193. WHO. Essential prevention and care interventions for adults and adolescents living with
HIV in resource-limited settings. 2008. Available from: http://www.who.int/entity/hiv/pub/
prev_care/OMS_EPP_AFF_en.pdf.
194. DiClemente RJ, Wingood GM, Del Rio C, Crosby RA. Prevention interventions for HIV
positive individuals. Sex Transm Infect 2002;78(6):393-5.
195. King-Spooner S. HIV prevention and the positive population. Int J STD AIDS 1999;10(3):
141-50.
196. WHO. Priority Interventions HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care in the health sector.
2009.
197. Kalichman SC, Cain D, Knetch J, Hill J. Patterns of sexual risk behavior change among
sexually transmitted infection clinic patients. Arch Sex Behav 2005;34(3):307-19.
198. Margolin A, Avants SK, Warburton LA, Hawkins KA, Shi J. A randomized clinical trial of a
manual-guided risk reduction intervention for HIV-positive injection drug users. Health
Psychol 2003;22(2):223-8.
199. Sterk CE, Theall KP, Elifson KW, Kidder D. HIV risk reduction among African-American
women who inject drugs: a randomized controlled trial. AIDS Behav 2003;7(1):73-86.
200. WHO. Intensified case finding (ICF), isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) and TB infection
control (IC) for people living with HIV. Report of a Joint World Health Organization, HIV/
AIDS and TB Department meeting. Geneva: 2008.

143
201. Walker AS, Ford D, Gilks CF, Munderi P, Ssali F, Reid A, et al. Daily co-trimoxazole
prophylaxis in severely immunosuppressed HIV-infected adults in Africa started on
combination antiretroviral therapy: an observational analysis of the DART cohort. Lancet
2010;375(9722):1278-86.
202. Mitchell SK, Kelly KJ, Potgieter FE, Moon MW. Assessing social preparedness for
antiretroviral therapy in a generalized AIDS epidemic: a diffusion of innovations approach.
AIDS Behav 2009;13(1):76-84.
203. Orrell C. Antiretroviral adherence in a resource-poor setting. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep
2005;2(4):171-6.
204. Sodergard B, Hofer S, Halvarsson M, Sonnerborg A, Tully MP, Lindblad AK. A structural
equation modeling approach to the concepts of adherence and readiness in antiretroviral
treatment. Patient Educ Couns 2007;67(1-2):108-16.
205. Tabarsi P, Saber-Tehrani AS, Baghaei P, Padyab M, Mansouri D, Amiri M, et al. Early
initiation of antiretroviral therapy results in decreased morbidity and mortality among
patients with TB and HIV. J Int AIDS Soc 2009;12(1):14.
206. Zolopa A, Andersen J, Powderly W, Sanchez A, Sanne I, Suckow C, et al. Early antiretroviral
therapy reduces AIDS progression/death in individuals with acute opportunistic infections:
a multicenter randomized strategy trial. PLoS ONE 2009;4(5):e5575.
207. Lawn SD, Harries AD, Wood R. Strategies to reduce early morbidity and mortality in adults
receiving antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings. Curr Opin HIV AIDS
2010;5(1):18-26.
208. WHO. Towards universal access. Scaling up priority HIV/AIDS interventions in the health
sector. 2009 Progress Report. 2009.
209. Gray RH, Wawer MJ, Brookmeyer R, Sewankambo NK, Serwadda D, Wabwire-Mangen F,
et al. Probability of HIV-1 transmission per coital act in monogamous, heterosexual, HIV-1-
discordant couples in Rakai, Uganda. Lancet 2001;357(9263):1149-53.
210. Pao D, Pillay D, Fisher M. Potential impact of early antiretroviral therapy on transmission.
Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2009;4(3):215-21.
211. DART Trial Team. Routine versus clinically driven laboratory monitoring of HIV antiretroviral
therapy in Africa (DART): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2010;375(9709):123-31.
212. Braitstein P, Brinkhof MW, Dabis F, Schechter M, Boulle A, Miotti P, et al. Mortality of HIV-
1-infected patients in the first year of antiretroviral therapy: comparison between low-
income and high-income countries. Lancet 2006;367(9513):817-24.
213. Effectiveness of HIV viral load monitoring of patient outcome in resource-poor settings
[database on the Internet]2009 [cited Februrary 28, 2010]. Available from: http://
clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00929604?term=Saag&cntry1=AF:ZM&rank=1.

144
214. Monitoring highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected parentsin Thailand [database
on the Internet] 2009 Last Updated: September 14 [cited Frebbrury 18, 2010]. Available
from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00162682?term=Lallemant&cntry1=SE:TH&ra
nk=4.
215. Antiretroviral treatment simplified follow-up management assessment (ANRS 12110
STRATALL) [database on the Internet] 2008 Last updated: April 16, 2008. Available from:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00301561?term=Laurent&cntry1=AF:CM&rank=1.
216. Goicoechea M, Liu S, Best B, Sun S, Jain S, Kemper C, et al. Greater tenofovir-associated
renal function decline with protease inhibitor-based versus nonnucleoside reverse-
transcriptase inhibitor-based therapy. J Infect Dis 2008;197(1):102-8.
217. Mohsen AH, Easterbrook PJ, Taylor C, Portmann B, Kulasegaram R, Murad S, et al. Impact
of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection on the progression of liver fibrosis in
hepatitis C virus infected patients. Gut 2003;52(7):1035-40.
218. Smit C, van den Berg C, Geskus R, Berkhout B, Coutinho R, Prins M. Risk of hepatitis-
related mortality increased among hepatitis C virus/HIV-coinfected drug users compared
with drug users infected only with hepatitis C virus: a 20-year prospective study. J Acquir
219. Benhamou Y, Bochet M, Di Martino V, Charlotte F, Azria F, Coutellier A, et al. Liver fibrosis
progression in human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus coinfected patients.
The Multivirc Group. Hepatology 1999;30(4):1054-8.
220. Chen TY, Ding EL, Seage Iii GR, Kim AY. Meta-analysis: increased mortality associated
with hepatitis C in HIV-infected persons is unrelated to HIV disease progression. Clin Infect
Dis 2009;49(10):1605-15.
221. Mocroft A, Rockstroh J, Soriano V, Ledergerber B, Kirk O, Vinogradova E, et al. Are specific
antiretrovirals associated with an increased risk of discontinuation due to toxicities or
patient/physician choice in patients with hepatitis C virus coinfection? Antivir Ther
2005;10(7):779-90.
222. Roche. Copegus (ribavirin, USP) prescibing information. 2010.
223. Bani-Sadr F, Denoeud L, Morand P, Lunel-Fabiani F, Pol S, Cacoub P, et al. Early virologic
failure in HIV-coinfected hepatitis C patients treated with the peginterferon-ribavirin
combination: does abacavir play a role? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007;45(1):123-5.
224. Rodriguez-Torres M, Torriani FJ, Soriano V, Borucki MJ, Lissen E, Sulkowski M, et al. Effect
of ribavirin on intracellular and plasma pharmacokinetics of nucleoside reverse
transcriptase inhibitors in patients with human immunodeficiency virus-hepatitis C virus
coinfection: results of a randomized clinical study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
2005;49(10):3997-4008.

145
225. Mira JA, Lopez-Cortes LF, Barreiro P, Tural C, Torres-Tortosa M, de Los Santos Gil I, et al.
Efficacy of pegylated interferon plus ribavirin treatment in HIV/hepatitis C virus co-infected
patients receiving abacavir plus lamivudine or tenofovir plus either lamivudine or emtricitabine
as nucleoside analogue backbone. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;62(6):1365-73.
226. Montes Ramírez ML Rodríguez Zapata M. Report of three cases of hyperlactacidemiae/
lactic acidosis after treatment of hepatitis C with pegylated interferon and ribavirin in HIV
coinfected patients Rev Clin Esp 2002;202:543-5.
227. Carrat F, Bani-Sadr F, Pol S, Rosenthal E, Lunel-Fabiani F, Benzekri A, et al. Pegylated
interferon alfa-2b vs standard interferon alfa-2b, plus ribavirin, for chronic hepatitis C in
HIV-infected patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;292(23):2839-48.
228. Laguno M, Murillas J, Blanco JL, Martinez E, Miquel R, Sanchez-Tapias JM, et al.
Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin compared with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for
treatment of HIV/HCV co-infected patients. AIDS 2004;18(13):F27-36.
229. Torriani FJ, Rodriguez-Torres M, Rockstroh JK, Lissen E, Gonzalez-Garcia J, Lazzarin A, et
al. Peginterferon Alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection in HIV-infected
patients. N Engl J Med 2004;351(5):438-50.
230. Chung RT, Andersen J, Volberding P, Robbins GK, Liu T, Sherman KE, et al. Peginterferon
Alfa-2a plus ribavirin versus interferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C in HIV-
coinfected persons. N Engl J Med 2004;351(5):451-9.
231. Laguno M, Cifuentes C, Murillas J, Veloso S, Larrousse M, Payeras A, et al. Randomized
trial comparing pegylated interferon alpha-2b versus pegylated interferon alpha-2a, both
plus ribavirin, to treat chronic hepatitis C in human immunodeficiency virus patients.
Hepatology 2009;49(1):22-31.

WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A guide for adaptation and implementation: revised principles and recommendations: ART for HIV infection in adults and
adolescents: recommendations for a public health approach.
1.Anti-retroviral agents - therapeutic use. 2.Anti-retroviral agents - pharmacology. 3.HIV infections - drug therapy.
4.Adult 5.Adolescent. 6.Guidelines. 7.Developing countries. I.World Health Organization.
ISBN 978 92 4 159976 4 (NLM classification: WC 503.2)
© World Health Organization 2010
All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization can be obtained from WHO Press, World Health
Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel.: +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857; e-mail:
bookorders@who.int). Requests for permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications – whether for sale or for
noncommercial distribution – should be addressed to WHO Press, at the above address (fax: +41 22 791 4806; e-mail:
permissions@who.int).
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city
or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent
approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or
recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors
and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this
publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or
implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World
Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use.
Printed in Austria

Hiv guideline who 2010

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Hiv guideline who 2010 (20)

More from Loveis1able Khumpuangdee (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Hiv guideline who 2010