Individual risk factors crucial in determining a patient's risk of heart attack if taking abacavir

Michael Carter
Published: 06 October 2010

The impact of abacavir treatment on the risk of heart attack varies according to underlying risk factors, investigators show in a study published in HIV Medicine.

Abacavir treatment (Ziagen, also in the combination pills Kivexa and Trizivir) was associated with a 90% increase in the relative risk of heart attack in the D:A:D study. Many patients discontinued treatment with the drug following the publication of these results.

However, an international team of investigators have reassessed the clinical significance of the relationship between abacavir treatment and the risk of heart attack, showing that underlying risk factors are important.

The researchers wanted to determine the relationship between abacavir therapy lasting five years and the absolute risk of heart attack. In addition, they also wished to see how many patients would need to take the drug for there to be one heart attack.

To do this they took into account individual patient’s individual cardiovascular risk profiles. This involved a consideration of lipid levels, blood pressure, age, smoking, and previous history of cardiovascular disease.

First they assessed the risk for a 40-year-old male with a low-risk profile for cardiovascular disease. The absolute five-year risk of a heart attack for such an individual was 0.1%. Moreover, 1111 patients would need to take abacavir for one individual to experience a heart attack.

However, as an individuals cardiovascular risk profile worsened, their absolute risk of a heart attack increased. In addition, there was a fall in the number of abacavir-patients needed for there to be one additional heart attack.

For example, if a patient had an unfavourable lipid profile (total cholesterol above 6.2 mmol/l) then his absolute five-year risk increased to 0.2%. In these circumstances, the number of patients treated with abacavir for there to be one heart attack was 555.

As the investigators added risk factors, there were further increases in absolute risk accompanied by falls in the number of patients per heart attack.

Therefore, for an individual with high total cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol, who smoked, and had diabetes, high blood pressure and a previous history of heart disease, the five-year absolute risk of heart attack was 15% and one heart attack would be seen per seven patients with such a risk factor treated with abacavir.

‘The clinical implications of this finding are simple – through regular  screening for and proper management of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors which determine underlying risk of MI [myocardial infarction, or heart attack] in HIV-infected patients, it may be possible to increase the number of patients who may be safely treated with a drug that is potentially associated with the development of a serious adverse event”, comment the investigators.

They argue that it is essential that the association between abacavir and a high relative risk of heart attack “is put into context.”

The researchers at the University of Copenhagen have developed an online tool that can be used by doctors and people with HIV to assess the potential impact of abacavir use on cardiovascular risk (link to online tool).


Kowalska JD et al. Implementing the number need to harm in clinical practice: the risk of myocardial infarction in HIV-1-infected patients treated with abacavir. HIV Medicine, 11: 200-08, 2010.

Community Consensus Statement on Access to HIV Treatment and its Use for Prevention

Together, we can make it happen

We can end HIV soon if people have equal access to HIV drugs as treatment and as PrEP, and have free choice over whether to take them.

Launched today, the Community Consensus Statement is a basic set of principles aimed at making sure that happens.

The Community Consensus Statement is a joint initiative of AVAC, EATG, MSMGF, GNP+, HIV i-Base, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, ITPC and NAM/aidsmap

This content was checked for accuracy at the time it was written. It may have been superseded by more recent developments. NAM recommends checking whether this is the most current information when making decisions that may affect your health.

NAM’s information is intended to support, rather than replace, consultation with a healthcare professional. Talk to your doctor or another member of your healthcare team for advice tailored to your situation.