Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Nonnucleoside Reverse-transcriptase Inhibitor- vs Ritonavir-boosted Protease Inhibitor-based Regimens for Initial Treatment of HIV Infection: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Randomized Trials

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. How to RESPOND to Modern Challenges for People Living with HIV: A Profile for a New Cohort Consortium

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Compassionate Use of Remdesivir in Covid-19

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftLetterForskningpeer review

  3. Interstitial lung abnormalities in people with HIV infection and uninfected controls

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  • Álvaro H Borges
  • Andreas Lundh
  • Britta Tendal
  • John A Bartlett
  • Nathan Clumeck
  • Dominique Costagliola
  • Eric S Daar
  • Patrícia Echeverría
  • Magnus Gisslén
  • Tania B Huedo-Medina
  • Michael D Hughes
  • Katherine Huppler Hullsiek
  • Paul Khabo
  • Stephanus Komati
  • Princy Kumar
  • Shahin Lockman
  • Rodger D MacArthur
  • Franco Maggiolo
  • Alberto Matteelli
  • Jose M Miro
  • Shinichi Oka
  • Kathy Petoumenos
  • Rebekah L Puls
  • Sharon A Riddler
  • Paul E Sax
  • Juan Sierra-Madero
  • Carlo Torti
  • Jens D Lundgren
Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND:  Previous studies suggest that nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) cause faster virologic suppression, while ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) recover more CD4 cells. However, individual trials have not been powered to compare clinical outcomes.

METHODS:  We searched databases to identify randomized trials that compared NNRTI- vs PI/r-based initial therapy. A metaanalysis calculated risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs), as appropriate. Primary outcome was death or progression to AIDS. Secondary outcomes were death, progression to AIDS, and treatment discontinuation. We calculated RR of virologic suppression and MD for an increase in CD4 cells at week 48.

RESULTS:  We included 29 trials with 9047 participants. Death or progression to AIDS occurred in 226 participants in the NNRTI arm and in 221 in the PI/r arm (RR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, .87-1.22; 12 trials; n = 3825), death in 205 participants in the NNRTI arm vs 198 in the PI/r arm (1.04; 0.86-1.25; 22 trials; n = 8311), and progression to AIDS in 140 participants in the NNRTI arm vs 144 in the PI/r arm (1.00; 0.80-1.25; 13 trials; n = 4740). Overall treatment discontinuation (1.12; 0.93-1.35; 24 trials; n = 8249) and from toxicity (1.21; 0.87-1.68; 21 trials; n = 6195) were comparable, but discontinuation due to virologic failure was more common with NNRTI (1.58; 0.91-2.74; 17 trials; n = 5371). At week 48, there was no difference between NNRTI and PI/r in virologic suppression (RR, 1.03; 0.98-1.09) or CD4(+) recovery (MD, -4.7 cells; -14.2 to 4.8).

CONCLUSIONS:  We found no difference in clinical and viro-immunologic outcomes between NNRTI- and PI/r-based therapy.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
Vol/bind63
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)268-280
ISSN1058-4838
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 18 apr. 2016

ID: 46495645