Dataset Information

Boosted lopinavir- versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: a prospective study of HIV-infected individuals in high-income countries.

ABSTRACT: Current clinical guidelines consider regimens consisting of either ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone among their recommended and alternative first-line antiretroviral regimens. However, these guidelines are based on limited evidence from randomized clinical trials and clinical experience.We compared these regimens with respect to clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes using data from prospective studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals in Europe and the United States in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration, 2004-2013. Antiretroviral therapy-naive and AIDS-free individuals were followed from the time they started a lopinavir or an atazanavir regimen. We estimated the 'intention-to-treat' effect for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens on each of the outcomes.A total of 6668 individuals started a lopinavir regimen (213 deaths, 457 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths), and 4301 individuals started an atazanavir regimen (83 deaths, 157 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths). The adjusted intention-to-treat hazard ratios for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], .53-.91) for death, 0.67 (95% CI, .55-.82) for AIDS-defining illness or death, and 0.91 (95% CI, .84-.99) for virologic failure at 12 months. The mean 12-month increase in CD4 count was 8.15 (95% CI, -.13 to 16.43) cells/µL higher in the atazanavir group. Estimates differed by NRTI backbone.Our estimates are consistent with a lower mortality, a lower incidence of AIDS-defining illness, a greater 12-month increase in CD4 cell count, and a smaller risk of virologic failure at 12 months for atazanavir compared with lopinavir regimens.

SUBMITTER: HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4447777 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Boosted lopinavir- versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: a prospective study of HIV-infected individuals in high-income countries.

Cain Lauren E LE Phillips Andrew A Olson Ashley A Sabin Caroline C Jose Sophie S Justice Amy A Tate Janet J Logan Roger R Robins James M JM Sterne Jonathan A C JA van Sighem Ard A Reiss Peter P Young James J Fehr Jan J Touloumi Giota G Paparizos Vasilis V Esteve Anna A Casabona Jordi J Monge Susana S Moreno Santiago S Seng Rémonie R Meyer Laurence L Pérez-Hoyos Santiago S Muga Roberto R Dabis François F Vandenhende Marie-Anne MA Abgrall Sophie S Costagliola Dominique D Hernán Miguel A MA

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 20150106 8

<h4>Background</h4>Current clinical guidelines consider regimens consisting of either ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone among their recommended and alternative first-line antiretroviral regimens. However, these guidelines are based on limited evidence from randomized clinical trials and clinical experience.<h4>Methods</h4>We compared these regimens with respect to clinical, immunologic, and virologic outco ...[more]

PMID: 25567330

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlbuvirtide (ABT), a fusion inhibitor against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, has good efficacy and tolerability for HIV treatment. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ABT-based regimen as second-line therapy. This current study evaluated the efficacy and safety of switching to ABT + ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) treatment in a cohort of HIV-infected individuals who failed initial treatment.MethodsThis retrospective comparative cohort study included patients who failed initial treatment and switched to either ABT + LPV/r (the ABT group) or two nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) + LPV/r (the NRTI group) between November 2019 and December 2020 in the People's Hospital of Zhaojue County in Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture, China. All individuals were followed up from baseline to 12 weeks after conversion, or until the patient developed unacceptable toxic effects or was loss of follow-up. The proportion of patients who achieved virological suppression (viral load <50 copies/mL) at week 12 was considered a primary efficacy endpoint. Safety outcomes included the incidence of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities. All participants underwent resistance testing before regimen conversion. The linear regression model was applied to evaluate the association of CD4+ T cell count with the patient's clinical characteristics.ResultsA total of 71 patients were included in this study, the two groups were comparable at baseline in terms of age, sex, CD4+ T cell count, and viral load. The suppression of HIV-1 RNA to levels <50 copies/mL was achieved in 82.4% (28/31) and 29.7% (11/34) of patients in the ABT group and the NRTI group, respectively (P<0.001). Older age (P=0.016) and higher alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels (P=0.038), but not rescue regimen, were associated with attenuated CD4+ T cell recovery. Most adverse events mild in severity, with abdominal pain as the most reported event in two groups (26.8%, 19/71), and no severe adverse events were detected.ConclusionsConversion to ABT + LPV/r therapy appears to be an effective and safe strategy. This treatment regimen has great potential to be generalized in the HIV-infected population, although further testing in a larger patient population is required to verify these results.

Project description:BackgroundNevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy is the predominant (and often the only) regimen available for children in resource-limited settings. Nevirapine resistance after exposure to the drug for prevention of maternal-to-child human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission is common, a problem that has led to the recommendation of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in such settings. Regardless of whether there has been prior exposure to nevirapine, the performance of nevirapine versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in young children has not been rigorously established.MethodsIn a randomized trial conducted in six African countries and India, we compared the initiation of HIV treatment with zidovudine, lamivudine, and either nevirapine or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in HIV-infected children 2 to 36 months of age who had no prior exposure to nevirapine. The primary end point was virologic failure or discontinuation of treatment by study week 24.ResultsA total of 288 children were enrolled; the median percentage of CD4+ T cells was 15%, and the median plasma HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level was 5.7 log(10) copies per milliliter. The percentage of children who reached the primary end point was significantly higher in the nevirapine group than in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (40.8% vs. 19.3%; P<0.001). Among the nevirapine-treated children with virologic failure for whom data on resistance were available, more than half (19 of 32) had resistance at the time of virologic failure. In addition, the time to a protocol-defined toxicity end point was shorter in the nevirapine group (P=0.04), as was the time to death (P=0.06).ConclusionsOutcomes were superior with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir among young children with no prior exposure to nevirapine. Factors that may have contributed to the suboptimal results with nevirapine include elevated viral load at baseline, selection for nevirapine resistance, background regimen of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, and the standard ramp-up dosing strategy. The results of this trial present policymakers with difficult choices. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; P1060 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00307151.).

Dataset Information

Boosted lopinavir- versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: a prospective study of HIV-infected individuals in high-income countries.

Publications

Boosted lopinavir- versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: a prospective study of HIV-infected individuals in high-income countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets