In 2002 it was shown that substitution of zidovudine and stavudine with abacavir partly reversed lipoatrophy

[21] (routine pre-emptive switching from thymidine analogues was first instituted later). Furthermore, abacavir is one component in the formulation of trizivir, which is often given to noncompliant patients [22]. Abacavir, as a new NRTI, was also frequently included in second-line regimens for virological failure. Therefore, in the first part of the study period, abacavir was used mainly in second-line regimens for patients with metabolic problems and adherence problems, factors that may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. This may have generated a scenario prone to confounding by indication, in which patients with an a priori higher risk of cardiovascular disease were prescribed abacavir. In recent years, both Danish and international recommendations have included Tanespimycin molecular weight abacavir, efavirenz and a third NRTI as one of the preferred first-line regimens. Because efavirenz and abacavir increase the risk of skin reactions, patients needing HAART often start with other NRTIs and subsequently substitute them with abacavir.

Thus, the group of patients in our cohort whose first HAART regimen contained abacavir was too selleck screening library small to allow a subgroup analysis of MI risk. As a surrogate analysis, we estimated MI risk in patients who started abacavir therapy in the first 2 years after initiation of HAART. We also found an increased risk of MI in this group. A major concern is that the increased risk of cardiovascular disease found in abacavir-exposed patients results from a ‘channelling bias’ [23]. However, we still observed an increased risk of MI in patients who initiated abacavir within 2 years after initiation of HAART, arguing against such an effect.

Also, patients who initiated abacavir as part of a treatment with three NRTIs had an increased risk of MI. In contrast to the Thalidomide DAD study, we saw an increased risk of MI in patients who were off abacavir for over 6 months. Although this estimate is imprecise, it may indicate that either the abacavir effect lingers for a long period after discontinuation of the drug or that the estimate remains substantially confounded, for example by ‘channelling bias’. To further control for the effect of potential confounding, we supplemented our analyses with propensity score-based confounding adjustment. This step did not identify any factors explaining the increased risk of MI in abacavir-exposed patients. While safety analyses from randomized trials have not indicated effects of abacavir treatment on risk of MI, these studies were not designed to study potential cardiovascular effects of this drug [24]. The pathways by which abacavir may induce cardiovascular disease are unclear. In the DAD study abacavir had no association with the risk of stroke [25].