A Study of Abacavir Plus Indinavir Sulfate Plus Efavirenz in HIV-Infected Patients

Brief summary

Reproduced verbatim from the official ClinicalTrials.gov record. Not medical advice.

To compare the virologic response between abacavir (ABC, 1592U89) regimens (drug vs. placebo) and between the 2 dosing regimens (BID vs. TID) with respect to the proportion of patients with plasma HIV RNA levels below the limit of detection \[AS PER AMENDMENT 8/27/97: \< 500 copies/ml at week 16\]. To evaluate the safety and tolerance of the study arms. \[AS PER AMENDMENT 3/10/99: During the extension period, compare the time to detectable viremia (2 consecutive plasma HIV RNA levels greater than or equal to 500 copies/ml) between ABC and placebo.\] Therapeutically, there is a need to explore potent alternative therapy for patients who have received, or are currently receiving, a double nucleoside analog combination including lamivudine (3TC), a regimen that was proven to be clinically inferior to indinavir (IDV) when combined with zidovudine/3TC in study ACTG 320. In order to produce and maintain a maximal antiviral response, all patients in this study will receive 2 or 3 potent, new agents; ABC, a nucleoside analog, EFV, a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), and IDV, a protease inhibitor. Virologically, the major question this protocol seeks to answer is how prior 3TC exposure in a dual nucleoside regimen influences the response to subsequent treatment. It is unclear whether it is best to add a protease inhibitor either 1) an NNRTI at 1 of 2 doses, or 2) an NNRTI at 1 of 2 doses plus a new nucleoside analog to achieve plasma HIV RNA levels that are below the limits of detection.

About this trial record page

What this page shows

Public field values for ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT00001086, including study identification, conditions, interventions, eligibility (age, sex, healthy volunteer), timeline, and U.S. site list.

What this page does not do

No medical advice, eligibility judgments, treatment recommendations, study quality scoring, or AI-generated medical summaries. No site contact phone numbers, emails, or investigator names.

Where the data comes from

Sourced from the official ClinicalTrials.gov public API. The official record is the source of truth.

Last refresh

Last update posted Oct 31, 2021 · Synced Sep 29, 2026

Related: full search, browse by condition, browse by drug or therapy, browse by sponsor, browse by U.S. city.