DESIGN: Prospective studies of HIV-infected individuals in Europe and the US included in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration.
METHODS: Antiretroviral therapy-naive and AIDS-free individuals were followed from the time they started an NRTI, efavirenz or nevirapine, classified as following one or both types of regimens at baseline, and censored when they started an ineligible drug or at 6 months if their regimen was not yet complete. We estimated the 'intention-to-treat' effect for nevirapine versus efavirenz regimens on clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes. Our models included baseline covariates and adjusted for potential bias introduced by censoring via inverse probability weighting.
RESULTS: A total of 15 336 individuals initiated an efavirenz regimen (274 deaths, 774 AIDS-defining illnesses) and 8129 individuals initiated a nevirapine regimen (203 deaths, 441 AIDS-defining illnesses). The intention-to-treat hazard ratios [95% confidence interval (CI)] for nevirapine versus efavirenz regimens were 1.59 (1.27, 1.98) for death and 1.28 (1.09, 1.50) for AIDS-defining illness. Individuals on nevirapine regimens experienced a smaller 12-month increase in CD4 cell count by 11.49 cells/μl and were 52% more likely to have virologic failure at 12 months as those on efavirenz regimens.
CONCLUSIONS: Our intention-to-treat estimates are consistent with a lower mortality, a lower incidence of AIDS-defining illness, a larger 12-month increase in CD4 cell count, and a smaller risk of virologic failure at 12 months for efavirenz compared with nevirapine.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was carried out among 684 infants attending goverment health clinics in 2 states in Malaysia. Body weight, length, and clinical assessment were measured on the same day for 9 visits, scheduled every month until 6 months of age and every 2 months until 12 months of age. All of the 3 z-scores for weight for age (WAZ), length for age (HAZ), and weight for length (WHZ) were calculated using WHO Anthro for Personal Computers software.
RESULTS: The average sensitivity and specificity for the visual clinical assessment for the detection of thinness were higher using the WHO 2006 standard as compared with using NCHS 1977. However, the overall sensitivity of the visual clinical assessment for the detection of thin and lean children was lower from 1 month of age until a year as compared with the WHO 2006 standard and NCHS 1977 reference. The positive predictive value (PPV) for the visual clinical assessment versus the WHO 2006 standard was almost doubled as compared with the PPV of visual clinical assessment versus the NCHS 1977 reference. The overall average sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and negative predictive value for the detection of stunting was higher for visual clinical assessment versus the WHO 2006 standard as compared with visual clinical assessment versus the NCHS 1977 reference.
CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and specificity of visual clinical assessment for the detection of wasting and stunting among infants are better for the WHO 2006 standard than the NCHS 1977 reference.