Good prognostic markers can be unreliable surrogates even if the association between clinical outcome and marker changes is the same for all drugs, as the relative importance of other mechanisms of their action, including adverse events, may vary among drugs [14]. In fact, the major meta-analysis assessing the surrogacy of 24-week changes in CD4 cell count and plasma viral load for disease progression to 2 years

[15] found that these markers were imperfect surrogate endpoints, explaining some but overall relatively little clinical risk. These findings were supported by detailed analyses of the Delta trial [16], and a 47% reduction in risk of AIDS/death despite only moderate impact on HIV RNA in the first trial

of ritonavir-containing combination Selleck STA-9090 therapy [17,18]. A recent review examining the magnitude of the effect of changes in CD4 cell Temsirolimus nmr count, HIV RNA and progression to AIDS or death also noted that, within short-term clinical trials, it was not possible to estimate the proportion of the effect of treatment on clinical outcomes associated with such surrogate endpoints [19]. Of note, NORA in fact found reverse relationships between abacavir vs. nevirapine and clinical vs. laboratory markers, rather than a relationship with laboratory markers and no relationship with clinical outcome as noted for lopinavir/ritonavir vs. efavirenz (both with zidovudine/lamivudine) in a recent ART Cohort Collaboration analysis [11]. Nevertheless,

antiretroviral drugs are licensed primarily on the basis of their effect on HIV RNA, not assuming that this is a true surrogate for clinical outcome, but as a pragmatic decision as switch to second-line ART HSP90 occurs long before clinical disease progression in resource-rich settings. There are several possible reasons why participants receiving abacavir-containing combination ART might have done better clinically. The significantly greater toxicity of nevirapine could indirectly have led to more clinical events, for example because of lower adherence (although this might have been expected to have had greater impacts on viral load and CD4 cell counts). Against this, we found no evidence of poorer adherence with nevirapine, there was no clear relationship between toxicity and cause of death (reviewed by an independent committee blinded to treatment allocation), and there was only a weak nonsignificant trend towards more ART modifications in the nevirapine group. NORA was designed as a blinded safety study: given the potential for abacavir hypersensitivity reactions, all participants were very closely monitored and it is extremely unlikely that important toxicity was missed. More abacavir substitutions with clinically superior drugs could have been made because of poorer immunological/virological responses.