Comparative effectiveness of single versus multiple tablet antiretroviral therapy regimens in clinical HIV practice.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Drozd DR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5411186 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparative effectiveness of single versus multiple tablet antiretroviral therapy regimens in clinical HIV practice.
Drozd Daniel R DR Saag Michael S MS Westfall Andrew O AO Mathews William Chris WC Haubrich Richard R Boswell Stephen L SL Cole Stephen R SR Porter Donna D Kitahata Mari M MM Juday Timothy T Rosenblatt Lisa L
Medicine 20170401 14
We determined risk of virologic failure (VF) in individuals initiating tenofovir/emtricitabine/efavirenz as single versus multiple tablet regimens (MTR). We found no significant difference in the risk of VF, though did observe a trend toward more VF and M184 V mutations among persons initiating MTR. Temporal trends in care may have confounded results. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesPill burden during antiretroviral treatment (ART) is associated with worse adherence and impaired virological suppression. We compared the effectiveness, tolerance, and persistence on treatment of single tablet regimens (STRs) with non-STR once-daily regimens in patients receiving first-line ART.MethodsRetrospective analysis of naïve HIV-1 infected patients prospectively enrolled in the French Dat'AIDS cohort and initiating first-line ART with STRs or once-daily non-STRs from 2004 to 2013. The primary outcome was time to treatment discontinuation defined by any change in the treatment regimen. STR and non-STR groups were compared controlling for baseline risk factors by inverse probability weighted treatment Cox analysis (IPWT) and propensity-score matching (PSM).ResultsOverall, 3212 patients (STR 499, non-STR 2713) were included. Median time to treatment discontinuation was shorter in non-STR patients than in STR patients, both in the IPWT (HR = 0.61, p<0.0001) and the PSM cohort (HR = 0.55, p<0.0001). This difference disappeared when censoring ART modification for simplification, both in the IPWT (HR = 0.97, p = 0.65) and the PSM cohort (HR = 0.91, p = 0.33). A lower rate of virological failure was observed with STRs than with non-STRs in both cohorts (HR = 0.23; p = 0.002 and HR = 0.22, p = 0.003, respectively). A lower rate of treatment modification for adverse event was observed with non-STRs in the IPWT cohort (HR = 1.46, p<0.0001), but not in the PSM cohort (HR = 1.22, p = 0.11).ConclusionFirst-line therapy with STRs was associated with a longer time to treatment discontinuation than with non-STRs. However, when ART modification for simplification was not considered as a failure, STRs and non-STRs were similar.
| S-EPMC5289500 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe possibility of incorporating generics into combination antiretroviral therapy and breaking apart once-daily single-tablet regimens (STRs), may result in less efficacious medications and/or more complex regimens with the expectation of marked monetary savings. A modeling approach that assesses the merits of such policies in terms of lifelong costs and health outcomes using adherence and effectiveness data from real-world U.S. settings.MethodsA comprehensive computer-based microsimulation model was developed to assess the lifetime health (life expectancy and quality adjusted life-years--QALYs) and economic outcomes in HIV-1 infected patients initiating STRs compared with multiple-table regimens including generic medications where possible (gMTRs). The STRs considered included tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and efavirenz or rilpivirine or elvitegravir/cobicistat. gMTRs substitutions included each counterpart to STRs, including generic lamivudine for emtricitabine and generic versus branded efavirenz.ResultsLife expectancy is estimated to be 1.301 years higher (discounted 0.619 QALY gain) in HIV-1 patients initiating a single-tablet regimen in comparison to a generic-based multiple-table regimen. STRs were associated with an average increment of $26,547.43 per patient in medication and $1,824.09 in other medical costs due to longer survival which were partially offset by higher inpatients costs ($12,035.61) with gMTRs treatment. Overall, STRs presented incremental lifetime costs of $16,335.91 compared with gMTRs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $26,383.82 per QALY gained.ConclusionsSTRs continue to represent good value for money under contemporary cost-effectiveness thresholds despite substantial price reductions of generic medications in the U. S.
| S-EPMC4725959 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) has evolved considerably over the past decades leading to a better control of human immunodeficiency virus replication. Recently, regimens have evolved so as to simplify dosing frequency and reduce pill burden to improve adherence. Several national and international guidelines suggest antiretroviral (ARV) regimen simplification as a method of improving adherence. Decreased cART adherence has been associated with both patient-related factors and regimen-related factors. Adherence rates are statistically higher when simpler, once-daily (OD) regimens are combined with smaller daily regimen pill burdens. The avoidance of selective non-adherence, where a patient takes part of a regimen but not the full regimen, is a further potential benefit offered by single-tablet regimens (STRs). Simplification of cART has been associated with a better quality of life (QoL). Although tempered by other factors, better adherence, higher QoL and patients' preferences are all key points which might combine to assure long-lasting efficacy and durability of cART. All studies underlined the favorable tolerability profile of newer STRs. Three STRs are currently available. Tenofovir (TDF) plus emtricitabine (FTC)/efavirenz (EFV) was the first OD complete ARV regimen available as a STR. TDF plus FTC/rilpivirine is a second-generation STR. The most recently approved STR, TDF plus FTC/cobicistat/elvitegravir, is the first non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based STR. All of them have shown excellent efficacy; safety and tolerability have been improved by more recent formulations. Several other STRs are anticipated both combining completely different drugs, abacavir (ABC) plus lamivudine (3TC)/dolutegravir, utilizing innovative formulations of older drugs, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, or taking advance of bioequivalent drugs, lamivudine (3TC) plus ABC/EFV. The future challenge would be to develop completely alternative STRs (including for example protease inhibitors or new molecules) to extend the advantages of simplicity to heavily pre-treated individuals.
| S-EPMC4108118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Once-daily, single-tablet regimens have become integral to the management of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection, partly because they may improve adherence due to a lower pill burden. This article reviews the single-tablet options.
| S-EPMC4296592 | biostudies-other
Project description:Single tablet regimens (STRs) have simplified antiretroviral therapy (ART) over the years in the adult human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) population. However, there is still a prevalent need to simplify regimens in children and adolescents living with HIV. Finding the optimal regimen requires a multi-factorial approach due to their complex pharmacokinetic profiles throughout childhood and the challenges and limitations of medication non-adherence in the pediatric population. These challenges include pill size, available formulations, palatability, and caregiver health literacy, which can all affect the proper administration of medications. The complexity of this population implies the importance of customizing everyone's antiretroviral regimen so that the patient and family can successfully adhere to the therapy. The current recommendations for ART in the adult and pediatric populations are similar, yet the use of STRs are limited. The goal of this review was to assess current data on available STRs and determine their utility as ART in the pediatric population.
| S-EPMC8591998 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Efavirenz (EFV) is a non-nucleoside widely used as first-line therapy for HIV-1 infection. Most of the research available on EFV comes from trials performed in industrialized countries and only a few studies have evaluated EFV in resource-limited settings (RLSs). In this article, we present a systematic review of the available randomized-controlled trials performed in RLSs that have compared EFV with other antiretrovirals, such as nevirapine and protease inhibitors. The data derived from these studies show that both EFV and nevirapine are adequate first-line therapy options for HIV-1 infection in RLSs, even in patients with concomitant tuberculosis. However, EFV may show a slight benefit in terms of toxicity and adverse events. By contrast, the data comparing EFV versus protease inhibitors is contradictory and further studies may be required to elucidate these discrepancies.
| S-EPMC3374961 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to compare 4 different ARV regimens in a clinical cohort in Brazil, with regard to the virologic and immunologic responses, clinical failure and reasons for changing. To compare the virologic response and clinical failure between groups we used the Cox and Kaplan Meier proportional hazard models. To analyze the immunologic outcome, we used multilevel GLLAMM and mixed effect linear regression models. To compare regimen change outcomes we used the Pearson's chi-square test. We included 840 participants distributed across the groups according to the initial ART regimen. The mean follow-up period was 27.8 months. Almost half the sample initiated ART with AIDS-related signs/symptoms. Virologic response was effective in 79.6% of participants within 12 months. The tenofovir/lamivudine/efavirenz group presented a higher proportion of virologic response (VL<50 at 6 months) when compared to the zidovudine/lamivudine/efavirenz group. There was no difference between the regimens regarding the immunologic response. A total of 17.3% of individuals changed regimen because of failure and 46.5% due to adverse events. Changes due to adverse events were more frequent in the group using zidovudine/lamivudine/efavirenz. The proportion of hospitalizations at 1 year was higher in the zidovudine/lamivudine/efavirenz group when compared to the tenofovir/lamivudine/efavirenz group. The effectiveness outcomes between the regimens were similar. Some differences may be due to the individual characteristics of patients, toxicity and acceptability of drugs. Studies are needed that compare similarly effective regimens and their respective treatment costs and financial impacts on SUS (Integrated Healthcare System).
| S-EPMC7521729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of single-tablet regimens (STRs) in HIV treatment is ubiquitous. However, reintroducing the (generic) components as multi-tablet regimens (MTRs) could be an interesting cost-reducing strategy. It is essential to involve patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) to examine the effects of such an approach. Hence, this study compared PROs of people living with HIV taking an STR versus a MTR in a real world setting.Materials and methodsThis longitudinal study included 188 people living with HIV. 132 remained on a MTR and 56 switched to an STR. At baseline, months 1-3-6-12-18 and 24, participants filled in questionnaires on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), depressive symptoms, HIV symptoms, neurocognitive complaints (NCC), treatment satisfaction and adherence. Generalized linear mixed models and generalized estimation equations mixed models were built.ResultsClinical parameters and PROs of the two groups were comparable at baseline. Neurocognitive complaints and treatment satisfaction did differ over time among the groups. In the STR-group, the odds of having NCC increased monthly by 4,1% as compared to the MTR-group (p = 0.035). Moreover, people taking an STR were more satisfied with their treatment after 6 months: the median change score was high: 24 (IQR 7,5-29). Further, treatment satisfaction showed a contrary evolution in the groups: the estimated state score of the STR-group increased by 3,3 while it decreased by 0,2 in the MTR-group (p = 0.003). No differences over time between the groups were observed with regard to HRQoL, HIV symptoms, depressive symptoms and adherence.ConclusionsNeurocognitive complaints were more frequently reported among people on an STR versus MTR. This finding contrasts with the higher treatment satisfaction in the STR-group over time. The long-term effects of both PROs should guide the decision-making on STRs vs. (generic) MTRs.
| S-EPMC8758085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Availability of a single source review of once-daily fixed-dose single tablet regimen (STR) and multiple tablet fixed-dose regimen (MTR) would optimally inform healthcare providers and policy makers involved in the management of population with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).We conducted a meta-analysis of published literature to compare patient adherence, clinical, and cost outcomes of STR to MTR.Published literature in English between 2005 and 2014 was searched using Embase, PubMed (Medline in-process), and ClinicalTrials.Gov databases. Two-level screening was undertaken by 2 independent researchers to finalize articles for evidence synthesis. Adherence, efficacy, safety, tolerability, healthcare resource use (HRU), and costs were assessed comparing STR to MTR. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed and heterogeneity examined using meta-regression.Thirty-five articles were identified for qualitative evidence synthesis, of which 9 had quantifiable data for meta-analysis (4 randomized controlled trials and 5 observational studies). Patients on STR were significantly more adherent when compared to patients on MTR of any frequency (odds ratio [OR]: 2.37 [95% CI: 1.68, 3.35], P < 0.001; 4 studies), twice-daily MTR (OR: 2.53 [95% CI: 1.13, 5.66], P = 0.02; 2 studies), and once-daily MTR (OR: 1.81 [95% CI: 1.15, 2.84], P = 0.01; 2 studies). The relative risk (RR) for viral load suppression at 48 weeks was higher (RR: 1.09 [95% CI: 1.04, 1.15], P = .0003; 3 studies) while RR of grade 3 to 4 laboratory abnormalities was lower among patients on STR (RR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.49, 0.94], P = 0.02; 2 studies). Changes in CD4 count at 48 weeks, any severe adverse events (SAEs), grade 3 to 4 AEs, mortality, and tolerability were found comparable between STR and MTR. Several studies reported significant reduction in HRU and costs among STR group versus MTR.Study depicted comparable tolerability, safety (All-SAE and Grade 3-4 AE), and mortality and fewer Grade 3 to 4 lab abnormalities and better viral load suppression and adherence among patients on FDC-containing STR versus MTR; literature depicted favorable HRU and costs for STRs.These findings may help decision makers especially in resource-poor settings to plan for optimal HIV disease management when the choice of both STRs and MTRs are available.
| S-EPMC4620781 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare outcomes with single tablet regimens (STR) versus multi-tablet regimens (MTR) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment using published data.DesignSystematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of literature on approved and investigational HIV regimens.MethodsThe research followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Single or un-blinded studies reporting a direct comparison between STR and MTR were eligible for the meta-analysis. Double-blinded studies were excluded due to lack of difference in pill burden between cohorts. The key outcomes of interest included: adherence rates/proportion meeting target, efficacy, safety/tolerability, non-clinical and economic outcomes.ResultsAfter screening 63 full-text articles and posters, 14 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The analysis showed that patients taking STR had improved outcomes over those taking MTR. Patients were significantly more adherent regardless of daily dosing frequency (odds ratio [OR]: 1.96, p < 0.001) and were more likely to achieve virological suppression (relative risk [RR]: 1.05, p = 0.002). There was a trend toward a lower discontinuation risk in the STR cohort, together with reported higher therapy satisfaction, better symptom control, improved health status, reduced healthcare resource utilization and demonstrated cost-effectiveness compared to MTR. There were no differences in CD4 cell count increase (at 48 weeks) or safety outcomes.ConclusionsThe findings of this study confirm previously reported preliminary findings of the advantages of STR over MTR for HIV treatment in adherence, therapy continuation, viral suppression, tolerability, quality of life improvement, cost-effectiveness and healthcare resource utilization.
| S-EPMC6206661 | biostudies-literature