Dataset Information

Quadruple versus triple combination antiretroviral therapies for treatment naive people with HIV: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the effects of four drug (quadruple) versus three drug (triple) combination antiretroviral therapies in treatment naive people with HIV, and explore the implications of existing trials for clinical practice and research.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources

PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from March 2001 to December 2016 (updated search in PubMed and EMBASE up to June 2018); and reference lists of eligible studies and related reviews.

Study selection

Randomised controlled trials comparing quadruple with triple combination antiretroviral therapies in treatment naive people with HIV and evaluating at least one effectiveness or safety outcome.

Review methods

Outcomes of interest included undetectable HIV-1 RNA, CD4 T cell count, virological failure, new AIDS defining events, death, and severe adverse effects. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted.

Results

Twelve trials (including 4251 people with HIV) were eligible. Quadruple and triple combination antiretroviral therapies had similar effects on all relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes, with no point estimates favouring quadruple therapy. With the triple therapy as the reference group, the risk ratio was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.05) for undetectable HIV-1 RNA, 1.00 (0.90 to 1.11) for virological failure, 1.17 (0.84 to 1.63) for new AIDS defining events, 1.23 (0.74 to 2.05) for death, and 1.09 (0.89 to 1.33) for severe adverse effects. The mean difference in CD4 T cell count increase between the two groups was -19.55 cells/?L (-43.02 to 3.92). In general, the results were similar, regardless of the specific regimens of combination antiretroviral therapies, and were robust in all subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

In this study, effects of quadruple combination antiretroviral therapy were not better than triple combination antiretroviral therapy in treatment naive people with HIV. This finding lends support to current guidelines recommending the triple regimen as first line treatment. Further trials on this topic should be conducted only when new research is justified by adequate systematic reviews of the existing evidence. However, this study cannot exclude the possibility that quadruple cART would be better than triple cART when new classes of antiretroviral drugs are made available.

SUBMITTER: Feng Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6613201 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quadruple versus triple combination antiretroviral therapies for treatment naive people with HIV: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Feng Qi Q Zhou Aoshuang A Zou Huachun H Ingle Suzanne S May Margaret T MT Cai Weiping W Cheng Chien-Yu CY Yang Zuyao Z Tang Jinling J

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20190708

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the effects of four drug (quadruple) versus three drug (triple) combination antiretroviral therapies in treatment naive people with HIV, and explore the implications of existing trials for clinical practice and research.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.<h4>Data sources</h4>PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from March 2001 to December 2016 (update ...[more]

PMID: 31285198

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCardiac involvement in HIV infected children has been frequently reported, but whether this is due to HIV infection itself or to antiretroviral treatment (ART) is unknown.MethodsThis cross sectional study involved 114 vertically-acquired HIV-infected (56 ART-naive, 58 ART-exposed) and 51 healthy children in Jakarta, Indonesia. Echocardiography was performed to measure dimensions of the left ventricle (LV) and systolic functions. We applied general linear modeling to evaluate the associations between HIV infection/treatment status and cardiac parameters with further adjustment for potential confounders or explanatory variables. Findings are presented as (adjusted) mean differences between each of the two HIV groups and healthy children, with 95% confidence intervals and p values.ResultsCompared to healthy children, ART-naïve HIV-infected children did not show significant differences in age-and-height adjusted cardiac dimensions apart from larger LV internal diameter (difference 2.0 mm, 95%CI 0.2 to 3.7), whereas ART exposed HIV infection showed thicker LV posterior walls (difference = 1.1 mm, 95%CI 0.5 to 1.6), larger LV internal diameter (difference = 1.7 mm, 95%CI 0.2 to 3.2) and higher LV mass (difference = 14.0 g, 7.4 to 20.5). With respect to systolic function, reduced LV ejection fraction was seen in both ART-naïve HIV infected (adjusted difference = -6.7%, -11.4 to -2.0) and, to a lesser extent, in ART-exposed HIV infected children (difference = -4.5%, -8.5 to -0.4). Inflammation level seemed to be involved in most associations in ART-exposed HIV-infected, but few, if any, for decreased function in the ART-naive ones, whereas lower hemoglobin appeared to partially mediate chamber dilation in both groups and reduced function, mainly in ART-exposed children.ConclusionsART-naive HIV infected children have a substantial decrease in cardiac systolic function, whereas the ART-exposed have thicker ventricular walls with larger internal diameter and higher mass, but less functional impairment.

Project description:BackgroundDosing frequency is an important determinant of regimen effectiveness. Methods. To compare efficacy of once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) antiretroviral therapy, we randomized human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive, treatment-naive patients to lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) administered at a dosage of 400 mg of lopinavir and 100 mg of ritonavir BID (n = 160) or 800 mg of lopinavir and 200 mg of ritonavir QD (n = 161), plus either emtricitabine 200 mg QD and extended-release stavudine at a dosage of 100 mg QD or tenofovir at a dosage of 300 mg QD. Randomization was stratified by screening HIV RNA level <100,000 copies/mL versus > or = 100,000 copies/mL. The primary efficacy end point was sustained virologic response (SVR; defined as reaching and maintaining an HIV RNA level <200 copies/mL) through week 48.ResultsSubjects were 78% male, 33% Hispanic, and 34% black. A total of 82% of subjects completed the study, and 71% continued to receive the initially assigned dosage schedule. The probability of SVR did not differ significantly for the BID versus QD comparison, with an absolute proportional difference of 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.07 to 0.12). The comparison depended on the screening RNA stratum (P=.038); in the higher RNA stratum, the probability of SVR was significantly better in the BID arm than in the QD arm: 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-0.94) versus 0.76 (95% CI, 0.64-0.84), a difference of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.01-0.25). Lopinavir trough plasma concentrations were higher with BID dosing. Adherence to prescribed doses of LPV/r was 90.6% in the QD arm versus 79.9% in the BID arm (P<.001). Conclusions. Although subjects assigned to QD regimens had better adherence, overall treatment outcomes were similar in the QD and BID arms. Subjects with HIV RNA levels > or =100,000 copies/mL had better SVR with BID regimens at 48 weeks, which suggests a possible advantage in this setting for more frequent dosing. Clinical trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00036452.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough antiretroviral regimens containing integrase inhibitors rapidly suppress HIV viral load in non-pregnant adults, few published data from randomised controlled trials have compared the safety and efficacy of any integrase inhibitor to efavirenz when initiated during pregnancy. We compared safety and efficacy of antiretroviral therapy with either raltegravir or efavirenz in late pregnancy.MethodsAn open-label, randomised controlled trial was done at 19 hospitals and clinics in Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, and the USA. Antiretroviral-naive pregnant women (20-<37 weeks gestation) living with HIV were assigned to antiretroviral regimens containing either raltegravir (400 mg twice daily) or efavirenz (600 mg each night) plus lamivudine 150 mg and zidovudine 300 mg twice daily (or approved alternative backbone regimen), using a web-based, permuted-block randomisation stratified by gestational age and backbone regimen. The primary efficacy outcome was plasma HIV viral load below 200 copies per mL at (or near) delivery. The primary efficacy analysis included all women with a viral load measurement at (or near) delivery who had viral load of at least 200 copies per mL before treatment and no genotypic resistance to any study drugs; secondary analyses eliminated these exclusion criteria. The primary safety analyses included all women who received study drug, and their infants. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01618305.FindingsFrom Sep 5, 2013, to Dec 11, 2018, 408 women were enrolled (206 raltegravir, 202 efavirenz) and 394 delivered on-study (200 raltegravir, 194 efavirenz); 307 were included in the primary efficacy analysis (153 raltegravir, 154 efavirenz). 144 (94%) women in the raltegravir group and 129 (84%) in the efavirenz group met the primary efficacy outcome (absolute difference 10%, 95% CI 3-18; p=0·0015); the difference primarily occurred among women enrolling later in pregnancy (interaction p=0·040). Frequencies of severe or life-threatening adverse events were similar among mothers (30% in each group; 61 raltegravir, 59 efavirenz) and infants (25% in each group; 50 raltegravir, 48 efavirenz), with no treatment-related deaths.InterpretationOur findings support major guidelines. The integrase inhibitor dolutegravir is currently a preferred regimen for the prevention of perinatal HIV transmission with raltegravir recommended as a preferred or alternative integrase inhibitor for pregnant women living with HIV.FundingEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Patients with type 2 diabetes are at risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications. Intensive glycaemic control, especially in patients with short duration of diabetes, is the mainstay of management of type 2 diabetes to lower the risk of complications. However, despite the improvement in the understanding of the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes and development of novel glucose-lowering agents, long-term durable glycaemic control remains a difficult goal to achieve. Several challenging clinical trials proved that an early combination therapy with a variety of glucose-lowering agents had a more favourable effect than conventional stepwise therapy in terms of glycaemic control. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a novel, initial triple combination therapy with metformin, sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (saxagliptin) compared with conventional stepwise add-on therapy in drug-naïve patients with recent-onset type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This study is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, parallel group, comparator-controlled trial. A total of 104 eligible participants will be randomised to either the initial combination therapy group or the conventional stepwise add-on therapy group for 104?weeks. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients who achieved haemoglobin A1c level<6.5%?without hypoglycaemia, weight gain or discontinuation due to adverse events at 104?weeks. This trial will determine whether a novel triple combination therapy with metformin, dapagliflozin and saxagliptin has a beneficial effect on durable glycaemic control compared with conventional therapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study protocol was approved by the local institutional review boards and independent ethics committees over the recruitment sites. Results of this study will be disseminated in scientific journals and scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02946632; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundLittle evidence is available for head-to-head comparisons of psychosocial interventions and pharmacological interventions in psychosis. We aimed to establish whether a randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus antipsychotic drugs versus a combination of both would be feasible in people with psychosis.MethodsWe did a single-site, single-blind pilot randomised controlled trial in people with psychosis who used services in National Health Service trusts across Greater Manchester, UK. Eligible participants were aged 16 years or older; met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service; were in contact with mental health services, under the care of a consultant psychiatrist; scored at least 4 on delusions or hallucinations items, or at least 5 on suspiciousness, persecution, or grandiosity items on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS); had capacity to consent; and were help-seeking. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, CBT, or antipsychotics plus CBT. Randomisation was done via a secure web-based randomisation system (Sealed Envelope), with randomised permuted blocks of 4 and 6, stratified by gender and first episode status. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant. Participants were followed up for 1 year. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data about recruitment, retention, and acceptability), and the primary efficacy outcome was the PANSS total score (assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks). Non-neurological side-effects were assessed systemically with the Antipsychotic Non-neurological Side Effects Rating Scale. Primary analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses were done on an as-treated basis. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN06022197.FindingsOf 138 patients referred to the study, 75 were recruited and randomly assigned-26 to CBT, 24 to antipsychotics, and 25 to antipsychotics plus CBT. Attrition was low, and retention high, with only four withdrawals across all groups. 40 (78%) of 51 participants allocated to CBT attended six or more sessions. Of the 49 participants randomised to antipsychotics, 11 (22%) were not prescribed a regular antipsychotic. Median duration of total antipsychotic treatment was 44·5 weeks (IQR 26-51). PANSS total score was significantly reduced in the combined intervention group compared with the CBT group (-5·65 [95% CI -10·37 to -0·93]; p=0·019). PANSS total scores did not differ significantly between the combined group and the antipsychotics group (-4·52 [95% CI -9·30 to 0·26]; p=0·064) or between the antipsychotics and CBT groups (-1·13 [95% CI -5·81 to 3·55]; p=0·637). Significantly fewer side-effects, as measured with the Antipsychotic Non-neurological Side Effects Rating Scale, were noted in the CBT group than in the antipsychotics (3·22 [95% CI 0·58 to 5·87]; p=0·017) or antipsychotics plus CBT (3·99 [95% CI 1·36 to 6·64]; p=0·003) groups. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be related to the trial (an overdose of three paracetamol tablets in the CBT group).InterpretationA head-to-head clinical trial of CBT versus antipsychotics versus the combination of the two is feasible and safe in people with first-episode psychosis.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Dataset Information

Quadruple versus triple combination antiretroviral therapies for treatment naive people with HIV: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Study selection

Review methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Quadruple versus triple combination antiretroviral therapies for treatment naive people with HIV: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets