Dataset Information

Effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The unparalleled success of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) is based on the combination of three drugs from two classes. There is insufficient evidence whether simplification to ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients is effective and safe to reduce cART side effects and costs.

Methods

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings and trial registries to identify all randomised controlled trials comparing PI/r monotherapy to cART in suppressed patients. We calculated in an intention to treat (loss-of follow-up, discontinuation of assigned drugs equals failure) and per-protocol analysis (exclusion of protocol violators following randomisation) and based on three different definitions for virological failure pooled risk ratios for remaining virologically suppressed.

Findings

We identified 10 trials comparing 3 different PIs with cART based on a PI/r plus 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors in 1189 patients. With the most conservative approach (viral load <50 copies/ml on two consecutive measurements), the risk ratios for viral suppression at 48 weeks of PI/r monotherapy compared to cART were in the ITT analysis 0.94 8 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.00) p?=?0.06; risk difference -0.06 (95%CI -0.11 to 0) p?=?0.05, p for heterogeneity ?=?0.08, I(2)?=?43.1%) and in the PP analysis 0.93 ((95%CI 0.90 to 0.97) p<0.001; risk difference -0.07 (95%CI -0.10 to -0.03) p<0.001, p for heterogeneity ?=?0.44, I(2)?=?0%). Reintroduction of cART in 44 patients with virological failure led in 93% to de-novo viral suppression.

Interpretation

Virologically well suppressed HIV-infected patients have a lower chance to maintain viral suppression when switching from cART to PI/r monotherapy. Failing patients achieve high rates of de-novo viral suppression following reintroduction of reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

SUBMITTER: Mathis S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3139616 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: a meta-analysis.

Mathis Sandra S Khanlari Bettina B Pulido Federico F Schechter Mauro M Negredo Eugenia E Nelson Mark M Vernazza Pietro P Cahn Pedro P Meynard Jean-Luc JL Arribas Jose J Bucher Heiner C HC

PloS one 20110719 7

<h4>Background</h4>The unparalleled success of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) is based on the combination of three drugs from two classes. There is insufficient evidence whether simplification to ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients is effective and safe to reduce cART side effects and costs.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings and trial registries t ...[more]

PMID: 21811554

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Protease inhibitor monotherapy is a simplified treatment strategy for virally suppressed HIV-positive patients that has the potential for cost savings, as fewer drugs are used than with combination therapy. However, evidence for its economic value is limited. OBJECTIVES:We assessed the cost-effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy followed by treatment intensification in case of viral load rebound versus combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) with efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir in HIV-1 infected patients with viral suppression in the ANRS 140 DREAM trial. METHODS:DREAM was conducted in 36 French Hospitals between 2009 and 2013. For each treatment strategy, we estimated the unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted mean costs (in €, year 2010 values) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient, as well as incremental costs and QALYs per patient. We then assessed uncertainty using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, scenario analyses and cost-effectiveness price-threshold (CEPT) analysis. RESULTS:In the base-case analysis considering 2009-2013 antiretroviral drug (ARV) prices, adjusted incremental costs and QALYs were - €3296 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 5202 to - 1391) and 0.006 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.033), respectively, over 2 years, suggesting that monotherapy was cost-effective with a probability of 100% at various cost-effectiveness thresholds. In scenario analyses considering 2018 ARV prices, monotherapy remained cost-effective but with a lower probability (94% vs. 100% in the base-case analysis). The current price of cART would have to decrease by 34% to be cost-effective with a probability of 95%. CONCLUSION:Monotherapy appears to be cost-effective compared with cART for virologically suppressed HIV-positive patients in France. CEPT analysis is a useful tool to identify the preferred strategy to adopt given that ARV prices change rapidly. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00946595.

Project description:BackgroundHIV infection is associated with significant neurocognitive deficits making maximization of cognitive function among children receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) a public health imperative. Non-protease inhibitors (non-PIs) achieve higher drug levels in the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) compared to PIs, potentially leading to better neurocognitive function by reducing CSF viral load and inflammation. ART that maximises children's neurodevelopment and school achievement could result in improved quality of life and productivity as adults, but little research to date has examined whether non-PI ART is associated with better neurocognitive outcomes. We compared the neurocognitive function between children living with HIV receiving PI-based and non PI-based ART.MethodsWe recruited a consecutive sample of clinically stable Ugandan children living with HIV aged 5-12 years who received PI-based or non PI-based ART for ≥ 1 year (viral load < 1000 copies). Neurocognitive function was assessed using the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, the Test of Variables of Attention, and Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. Age-adjusted neurocognitive z-scores for the two groups were compared using linear regression models in STATA version 13. The Hommel's method was used to adjust for multiple testing.ResultsWe enrolled 76 children living with HIV; 34 on PI ART and 42 on non-PI ART. Mean (±SD) age was greater in the non-PI vs. PI group (9.5 ± 1.9 vs. 8.5 ± 2.0) years (p = 0.03). Children in the non-PI group had lower socioeconomic scores (5.7 ± 3.3 vs. 7.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.02). There was no difference in neurocognitive function between the groups (adjusted p > 0.05) for KABC and TOVA. Children in the PI group had better total BOT scores than their counterparts (46.07 ± 1.40) vs. 40.51 (1.24), p = 0.03).ConclusionsWe detected no difference in neurocognitive function among children on PI and non PI-based ART therapy based on KABC and TOVA tests. Children on PI based ART had better motor function than their counterparts. We recommend a prospective study with a larger sample size.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) provides a promising efficacy in multiple cancers, their use is facing challenges for a high incidence of adverse effects. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the risks of organ-specific immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) associated with ICI monotherapy versus combination therapy among cancer patients.MethodsElectronic databases were systematically searched to include eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Any-grade and 3-5 grade IRAEs (colitis, pneumonitis, hepatitis, hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and hypophysitis) were extracted for meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality. The RevMan 5.3.5 software was used for meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 10 studies involving 8 RCTs with 2716 patients were included in this study. The most common any-grade adverse event was colitis (14.5%), followed by hypothyroidism (13.8%), hepatitis (10.4%), hypophysitis (10.0%), hyperthyroidism (9.3%), and pneumonitis (4.6%). Meta-analysis showed that ICI combination therapy significantly increased the risks of any-grade IRAEs in colitis [relative risk (RR), 3.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.56-8.12; p < 0.05], pneumonitis (RR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.54-3.45; p < 0.05), hepatitis (RR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.65-3.91; p < 0.05), hypothyroidism (RR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.71-2.76; p < 0.05), hyperthyroidism (RR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.08-4.70; p < 0.05), and hypophysitis (RR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.07-6.07; p < 0.05) compared with ICI monotherapy, as well as 3-5 grade IRAEs in colitis (RR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.62-3.86; p < 0.05), pneumonitis (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.00-3.93; p = 0.05), and hepatitis (RR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.29-5.63; p < 0.05).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrated that, compared with ICI monotherapy, patients receiving ICI combination therapy significantly increased organ-specific IRAEs in colitis, hypothyroidism, hepatitis, hypophysitis, hyperthyroidism, and pneumonitis. The incidence and severity of organ-specific IRAEs were drug and dose independent.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: a meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Publications

Effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets