OBJECTIVE: To compare three versions of the objective HIV-associated lipodystrophy (HIVLD) case definition (LDCD) and derived severity scale to spontaneous clinical LD assessment in adults initiating antiretroviral therapy. DESIGN AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The LDCD versions were the 'primary' LDCD [which includes dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and computerized tomography (CT)], a simpler 'central' LDCD that omits CT data, and a simpler but probably less accurate 'non-imaging' LDCD. Physician LD assessments were passively reported. Two of the 10 parameters in the primary LDCD were not collected and were imputed. Setting, participants and interventions: Retrospective analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled, 144-week study of tenofovir DF or stavudine (d4T) in 600 antiretroviral-naive adults. RESULTS:Central LDCD and clinical assessment diagnosed LD in 27% and 19% of d4T recipients at week 144, respectively (P < 0.001), and 3% and 3% of tenofovir DF recipients, respectively (P = 0.248). The central LDCD performed at least as well as the primary LDCD; both were more sensitive than the non-imaging model. There was poor concordance between clinical and LDCD-based diagnosis (kappa 0.02-0.20); most clinical cases did not fulfill any LDCD. Using the central LDCD, most LD was grade 1; 6% of d4T recipients and no tenofovir DF recipient had grade 3-4 LD at week 144 (P = 0.007). Independent risk factors for LD using the central LDCD were d4T, increasing age, female sex and higher baseline triglycerides, whereas clinical assessment consistently identified only d4T. The LDCD score was more sensitive than DXA for assessing LD severity. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study of a first antiretroviral regimen, the LDCD was more sensitive for LD diagnosis and identified more lipodystrophy risk factors than spontaneous clinical assessment or DXA, and also objectively quantified LD severity. The central LDCD should make objective LD assessment cheaper and simpler. Spontaneous clinical LD assessment of is of limited value, even in placebo-controlled trials.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare three versions of the objective HIV-associated lipodystrophy (HIVLD) case definition (LDCD) and derived severity scale to spontaneous clinical LD assessment in adults initiating antiretroviral therapy. DESIGN AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The LDCD versions were the 'primary' LDCD [which includes dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and computerized tomography (CT)], a simpler 'central' LDCD that omits CT data, and a simpler but probably less accurate 'non-imaging' LDCD. Physician LD assessments were passively reported. Two of the 10 parameters in the primary LDCD were not collected and were imputed. Setting, participants and interventions: Retrospective analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled, 144-week study of tenofovir DF or stavudine (d4T) in 600 antiretroviral-naive adults. RESULTS: Central LDCD and clinical assessment diagnosed LD in 27% and 19% of d4T recipients at week 144, respectively (P < 0.001), and 3% and 3% of tenofovir DF recipients, respectively (P = 0.248). The central LDCD performed at least as well as the primary LDCD; both were more sensitive than the non-imaging model. There was poor concordance between clinical and LDCD-based diagnosis (kappa 0.02-0.20); most clinical cases did not fulfill any LDCD. Using the central LDCD, most LD was grade 1; 6% of d4T recipients and no tenofovir DF recipient had grade 3-4 LD at week 144 (P = 0.007). Independent risk factors for LD using the central LDCD were d4T, increasing age, female sex and higher baseline triglycerides, whereas clinical assessment consistently identified only d4T. The LDCD score was more sensitive than DXA for assessing LD severity. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study of a first antiretroviral regimen, the LDCD was more sensitive for LD diagnosis and identified more lipodystrophy risk factors than spontaneous clinical assessment or DXA, and also objectively quantified LD severity. The central LDCD should make objective LD assessment cheaper and simpler. Spontaneous clinical LD assessment of is of limited value, even in placebo-controlled trials.
Authors: Sher L Hendrickson; Lawrence A Kingsley; Eduardo Ruiz-Pesini; Jason C Poole; Lisa P Jacobson; Frank J Palella; Jay H Bream; Douglas C Wallace; Stephen J O'Brien Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 3.731