Research AppraisalRandomised Controlled Trial

Comparative evaluation of human T lymphocytes in HIV patients treated with lamivudine + zidovudine combined with nevirapine versus efavirenz

MedicineZhu, Xiaohong, Zou, Meiyin10 Apr 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

55CEBM
Evidence: WeakRandomised Controlled Trial

PICO Framework

P — Population100 HIV/AIDS patients admitted to hospital from June 2021 to September 2024
I — InterventionLamivudine + zidovudine + nevirapine
C — ComparatorLamivudine + zidovudine + efavirenz
O — OutcomesCD3+, CD4+, CD8+ T lymphocyte counts and adverse effects after 3 months of treatment

Bottom Line

This small single-centre RCT suggests nevirapine-based triple therapy may produce superior CD4+ recovery compared to efavirenz-based regimens in HIV patients. However, the study has significant methodological limitations including unclear randomisation, lack of blinding, and absence of viral load data - the primary endpoint for HIV treatment success. The 3-month follow-up is insufficient to assess durability or resistance development. Most critically, the study fails to report viral suppression rates, which are the cornerstone of HIV treatment evaluation. While the immunological findings are interesting, they cannot substitute for virological outcomes. The clinical relevance is further limited as both regimens are now considered suboptimal compared to current integrase inhibitor-based first-line therapy recommended in Australian and international guidelines.

Evidence: Weak

Key Findings

  • P Value: P < 0.05 for all primary comparisons

  • Effect Size: Higher CD3+ and CD4+ levels in nevirapine group, lower CD8+ levels

  • Primary Outcome: CD4+ T lymphocyte count improvement favouring nevirapine group

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Not calculable from available data

  • Confidence Interval: CD3+: 45.2-98.7, CD4+: 32.8-76.4

Clinical Application

Both regimens are established first-line options, though efavirenz increasingly replaced by integrase inhibitors Limited relevance as current Australian HIV guidelines favour integrase inhibitor-based regimens over NNRTI-based therapy as first-line treatment Treatment-naive HIV patients suitable for first-line antiretroviral therapy

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the efficacy of lamivudine + zidovudine plus nevirapine and efavirenz in the treatment hf human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). A total of 100 patients with HIV/AIDS admitted to our hospital from June 2021 to September 2024 were selected and randomly assigned into nevirapine and efavirenz groups (n = 50 per group). The nevirapine group was treated with lamidudine plus zidovudine combined with nevirapine, and the efavirenz group was treated with lamidudine plus zidovudine plus efavirenz. The primary outcomes measured were the changes of lymphocyte count and adverse effects after 3 months of treatment. There was no statistical difference in baseline information between the 2 groups. After treatment, CD3 + and CD4 + levels were higher in the nevirapine group than in the efavirenz group (P <.05, 95% CI: 45.2-98.7 for CD3 + and 32.8-76.4 for CD4+), and CD8 + levels were lower in the nevirapine group than in the efavirenz group (P <.05); the overall incidence of adverse effects in the nevavirapine group was significantly lower than that in the efavirenz group (P <.05). In HIV/AIDS patients, treatment with lamivudine + zidovudine combined with nevirapine resulted in significantly improved CD4 + T cell counts, enhanced immune function, and fewer adverse reactions compared to treatment with lamivudine + zidovudine plus efavirenz, suggesting superior clinical value of the nevirapine-containing regimen.

References

  1. 1.Zhu, X., & Zou, M. (2026). Comparative evaluation of human T lymphocytes in HIV patients treated with lamivudine + zidovudine combined with nevirapine versus efavirenz. Medicine, Article 0000000000048049. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000048049
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service