Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of dual vs. single-action antidepressants on HIV clinical outcomes in HIV-infected people with depression.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Depression is highly prevalent among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) and has deleterious effects on HIV clinical outcomes. We examined changes in depression symptoms, viral suppression, and CD4 T cells/?l among PLWHA diagnosed with depression who initiated antidepressant treatment during routine care, and compared the effectiveness of dual-action and single-action antidepressants for improving those outcomes. DESIGN:Comparative effectiveness study of new user dual-action or single-action antidepressant treatment episodes occurring from 2004 to 2014 obtained from the Center for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems. METHODS:We identified new user treatment episodes with no antidepressant use in the preceding 90 days. We completed intent-to-treat and per protocol evaluations for the main analysis. Primary outcomes, were viral suppression (HIV viral load <200 copies/ml) and CD4 T cells/?l. In a secondary analysis, we used the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to evaluate changes in depression symptoms and remission (PHQ <5). Generalized estimating equations with inverse probability of treatment weights were fitted to estimate treatment effects. RESULTS:In weighted intent-to-treat analyses, the probability of viral suppression increased 16% after initiating antidepressants [95% confidence interval?=?(1.12, 1.20)]. We observed an increase of 39 CD4T cells/?l after initiating antidepressants (30, 48). Both the frequency of remission from depression and PHQ-9 scores improved after antidepressant initiation. Comparative effectiveness estimates were null in all models. CONCLUSION:Initiating antidepressant treatment was associated with improvements in depression, viral suppression, and CD4 T cells/?l, highlighting the health benefits of treating depression in PLWHA. Dual and single-action antidepressants had comparable effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Mills JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5680130 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of dual vs. single-action antidepressants on HIV clinical outcomes in HIV-infected people with depression.

Mills Jon C JC Harman Jeffrey S JS Cook Robert L RL Marlow Nicole M NM Harle Christopher A CA Duncan R Paul RP Gaynes Bradley N BN Pence Brian W BW

AIDS (London, England) 20171101 18

<h4>Objective</h4>Depression is highly prevalent among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) and has deleterious effects on HIV clinical outcomes. We examined changes in depression symptoms, viral suppression, and CD4 T cells/μl among PLWHA diagnosed with depression who initiated antidepressant treatment during routine care, and compared the effectiveness of dual-action and single-action antidepressants for improving those outcomes.<h4>Design</h4>Comparative effectiveness study of new user dual-ac ...[more]

PMID: 28832409

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHeart failure (HF) affects more than 6 million adults in the US and more than 64 million adults worldwide, with 50% prevalence of depression. Patients and clinicians lack information on which interventions are more effective for depression in HF.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of behavioral activation psychotherapy (BA) vs antidepressant medication management (MEDS) on patient-centered outcomes inpatients with HF and depression.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted from 2018 to 2022, including 1-year follow-up, at a not-for-profit academic health system serving more than 2 million people from diverse demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. Participant included inpatients and outpatients diagnosed with HF and depression, and data were analyzed as intention-to-treat. Data were analyzed from 2022 to 2023.InterventionsBA is an evidence-based manualized treatment for depression, promoting engagement in personalized pleasurable activities selected by patients. MEDS involves the use of an evidence-based collaborative care model with care managers providing coordination with patients, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians to only administer medications.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes included physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL), measured using the Short-Form 12-Item version 2 (SF-12); heart failure-specific HRQOL, measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; caregiver burden, measured with the Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure; emergency department visits; readmissions; days hospitalized; and mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months.ResultsA total of 416 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.71 [15.61] years; 243 [58.41%] male) were enrolled, with 208 patients randomized to BA and 208 patients randomized to MEDS. At baseline, mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores were 14.54 (3.45) in the BA group and 14.31 (3.60) in the MEDS group; both BA and MEDS recipients experienced nearly 50% reduction in depressive symptoms at 3, 6, and 12 months (eg, mean [SD] score at 12 months: BA, 7.62 (5.73); P < .001; MEDS, 7.98 (6.06); P < .001; between-group P = .55). There was no statistically significant difference between BA and MEDS in the primary outcome of PHQ-9 at 6 months (mean [SD] score, 7.53 [5.74] vs 8.09 [6.06]; P = .88). BA recipients, compared with MEDS recipients, experienced small improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (mean [SD] SF-12 physical score: 38.82 [11.09] vs 37.12 [10.99]; P = .04), had fewer ED visits (3 months: 38% [95% CI, 14%-55%] reduction; P = .005; 6 months: 30% [95% CI, 14%-40%] reduction; P = .008; 12 months: 27% [95% CI, 15%-38%] reduction; P = .001), and spent fewer days hospitalized (3 months: 17% [95% CI, 8%-25%] reduction; P = .002; 6 months: 19% [95% CI, 13%-25%] reduction; P = .005; 12 months: 36% [95% CI, 32%-40%] reduction; P = .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this comparative effectiveness trial of BA and MEDS in patients with HF experiencing depression, both treatments significantly reduced depressive symptoms by nearly 50% with no statistically significant differences between treatments. BA recipients experienced better physical HRQOL, fewer ED visits, and fewer days hospitalized. The study findings suggested that patients with HF could be given the choice between BA or MEDS to ameliorate depression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03688100.

Project description:dyslipidemia is common and is often treated with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins). Little is known about the comparative effectiveness of statins among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. This study compared the effectiveness and toxicity of statins among HIV-infected patients in clinical care.we conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients starting their initial statin medications at 2 large HIV clinics (N = 700). The primary observation was change in lipid levels during statin therapy. Secondary observations included whether individualized National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) goals for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) levels were reached, and toxicity rates. We used linear regression to examine change in lipid levels, controlling for baseline lipid values and demographic and clinical characteristics. We conducted secondary analyses using propensity scores to address confounding by indication.the most commonly prescribed statins were atorvastatin (N = 303), pravastatin (N = 280), and rosuvastatin (N = 95). One year after starting a statin therapy, patients who received atorvastatin or rosuvastatin had significantly greater decreases in total cholesterol, LDL-C, and non-HDL-C than patients on pravastatin. The likelihood of reaching NCEP goals for LDL-C levels was higher with the use of rosuvastatin (OR 2.1; P = .03) and atorvastatin (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; P = .001) compared with that of pravastatin. The likelihood of reaching NCEP goals for non-HDL-C levels was higher for rosuvastatin (OR 2.3; P = .045) but not atorvastatin (OR, 1.5; P = .1) compared with pravastatin. Toxicity rates were similar for all 3 statins: 7.3% for atorvastatin, 6.1% for pravastatin, and 5.3% for rosuvastatin.our findings suggest that atorvastatin and rosuvastatin are preferable to pravastatin for treatment of HIV-infected patients with dyslipidemia, due to greater declines in total cholesterol, LDL-C, and non-HDL-C, with similar lower toxicity rates.

Project description:BackgroundThere are randomized trials assessing a variety of antiviral drugs for hepatitis B virus (HBV), but the relative effectiveness of these drugs in the treatment of patients co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) remains unclear. The objectives of the current study were to estimate and rank the relative effectiveness of antiviral drugs for treating HBV and HIV co-infected patients.MethodsRandomized trials, assessing the efficacy of antiviral drugs for HBV and HIV co-infected patients were searched in health-related databases. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Main outcome in this meta-analysis study was the success of treatment by antivirals as determined by virologic response. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis of these trials and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsSeven randomized trials (329 participants) were included in this network meta-analysis study. A network geometry was formed with six treatment options including four antiviral drugs, adefovir (ADV), emtricitabine (FTC), lamivudine (LMV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), combination treatment of TDF plus LMV, and placebo. The weighted percentage contributions of each comparison distributed fairly equally in the entire network of evidence. An assumption of consistency required for network meta-analysis was not violated (the global Wald test for inconsistency: Chi2(4) = 3.63, p = 0.46). The results of estimates showed no differences between the treatment regimens in terms of viral response for treating HBV and HIV co-infected patients, which spanned both benefit and harm (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.06-2.41). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low in all comparisons (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: 218 fewer per 1000,121 more to 602 fewer, very low certainty). Therefore, we remained uncertain to the true ranking of the antiviral treatments in HBV/ HIV co-infected patients.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that the evidence is insufficient to provide guidance to the relative effectiveness of currently available antiviral drugs with dual activity in treating co-infection of HBV/HIV. Well-designed, large clinical trials in this field to address other important outcomes from different epidemiological settings are recommended.

Project description:Importance:More than half of infants with new-onset epilepsy have electroencephalographic and clinical features that do not conform to known electroclinical syndromes (ie, nonsyndromic epilepsy). Levetiracetam and phenobarbital are the most commonly prescribed medications for epilepsy in infants, but their comparative effectiveness is unknown. Objective:To compare the effectiveness of levetiracetam vs phenobarbital for nonsyndromic infantile epilepsy. Design, Setting, and Participants:The Early Life Epilepsy Study-a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study conducted from March 1, 2012, to April 30, 2015, in 17 US medical centers-enrolled infants with nonsyndromic epilepsy and a first afebrile seizure between 1 month and 1 year of age. Exposures:Use of levetiracetam or phenobarbital as initial monotherapy within 1 year of the first seizure. Main Outcomes and Measures:The binary outcome was freedom from monotherapy failure at 6 months, defined as no second prescribed antiepileptic medication and freedom from seizures beginning within 3 months of initiation of treatment. Outcomes were adjusted for demographics, epilepsy characteristics, and neurologic history, as well as for observable selection bias using propensity score weighting and for within-center correlation using generalized estimating equations. Results:Of the 155 infants in the study (81 girls and 74 boys; median age, 4.7 months [interquartile range, 3.0-7.1 months]), those treated with levetiracetam (n?=?117) were older at the time of the first seizure than those treated with phenobarbital (n?=?38) (median age, 5.2 months [interquartile range, 3.5-8.2 months] vs 3.0 months [interquartile range, 2.0-4.4 months]; P?<?.001). There were no other significant bivariate differences. Infants treated with levetiracetam were free from monotherapy failure more often than those treated with phenobarbital (47 [40.2%] vs 6 [15.8%]; P?=?.01). The superiority of levetiracetam over phenobarbital persisted after adjusting for covariates, observable selection bias, and within-center correlation (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.1-16; number needed to treat, 3.5 [95% CI, 1.7-60]). Conclusions and Relevance:Levetiracetam may have superior effectiveness compared with phenobarbital for initial monotherapy of nonsyndromic epilepsy in infants. If 100 infants who received phenobarbital were instead treated with levetiracetam, 44 would be free from monotherapy failure instead of 16 by the estimates in this study. Randomized clinical trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of dual vs. single-action antidepressants on HIV clinical outcomes in HIV-infected people with depression.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of dual vs. single-action antidepressants on HIV clinical outcomes in HIV-infected people with depression.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets