Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 544Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A comparative study on early treatment outcome and adverse drug reaction profile of two protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral regimens in human immunodeficiency virus patients at a tertiary care teaching hospital, Rajasthan


1 Department of Medicine, ART Centre, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
2 Department of Pharmacology, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
3 Department of Medicine, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
4 Department of Medicine, RUHS College of Medical Sciences, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
5 ART Centre, SMS Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

Correspondence Address:
Charu Jain,
A-2, New Heera Bagh Doctors Flats, Near Kalyan Dharamshala, Jaipur, Rajasthan
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/picr.PICR_117_20

Introduction: Second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens are used when patients develop treatment failure from first-line drug regimens. The present study is aimed to compare treatment outcome in terms of clinical, virological, and immunological effectiveness over 1 year of follow-up in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients, switched to various second-line ART regimens and to assess adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Materials and Methods: A longitudinal observational study was conducted at ART center, SMS Hospital, Jaipur, after approval from Institutional Research Review Board. One hundred HIV positive patients, resistant to first line ART, switched to either of the 2 s line ART regimens were followed for 1 year for early treatment outcomes and any ADRs. Results: Out of 97 patients enrolled 65 patients received Tenofovir and 32 patients received Zidovudine (ZDV) along with lamivudine and Atazanavir/ritonavir. There was significant increment in CD4 count from the baseline value (202.51–438.52 cells/mm3) after 12 months of therapy. On comparison, CD4 cell rise was not significantly different between the two groups. However, Plasma viral load suppression was achieved insignificantly more number of patients in ZDV group than in tenofovir group: 31 (96.9%) versus 57 (87.7%), respectively. Opportunistic infections (OI) were seen in 21.5% and 28.1% patients respectively at the time of switching of second-line ART. Out of 59 ADRs reported, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, dyslipidemia, and anemia were most common. Conclusion: Nonadherence, drug resistance, and treatment failure are the major challenges in controlling HIV disease. Our study shows that both the second-line regimens were comparable in improvement in CD4 count and viral load suppression with 1 year success rate of 90.7%.
    
 

  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Agrawal A
    -  Jain C
    -  Kumar D
    -  Kumar M
    -  Sharma L
    -  Advani U
    -  Soni DC
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed177    
    PDF Downloaded1    

Recommend this journal