Literature DB >> 24655804

Interpreting the reasons for the choice and changing of two drug regimens in an observational cohort: comparison of a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based versus a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based first-line regimen.

I Jarrin1, B Hernández-Novoa, B Alejos, I Santos, J Lopez-Aldeguer, M Riera, F Gutiérrez, R Rubio, A Antela, J R Blanco, S Moreno.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We compared reasons for the choice of regimen, time to and reasons for third drug modification, virological response and change in CD4 T-cell counts in patients started on atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r)- vs. efavirenz (EFV)-based first-line regimens.
METHODS: We included patients from the Cohort of the Spanish HIV Research Network (CoRIS), a multicentre cohort of HIV-positive treatment-naïve subjects, in the study. We used logistic regression to assess factors associated with choosing ATV/r vs. EFV, proportional hazards models on the subdistribution hazard to estimate subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) for third drug modification, logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for virological response and linear regression to assess mean differences in CD4 T-cell count increase from baseline.
RESULTS: Of 2167 patients, 10.7% started on ATV/r. ATV/r was more likely than EFV to be prescribed in injecting drug users [adjusted OR 1.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-3.33], in 2009-2010 (adjusted OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.08-2.47) and combined with abacavir plus lamivudine (adjusted OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.98-2.43). Multivariate analyses showed no differences, comparing ATV/r vs. EFV, in the risk of third drug modification (sHR 1.04; 95% CI 0.74-1.46) or in virological response (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.46-1.41); differences in mean CD4 T-cell count increase from baseline were at the limit of statistical significance (mean difference 29.8 cells/μL; 95% CI -4.1 to 63.6 cells/μL). In patients changing from EFV, 48% of changes were attributable to toxicity/adverse events, 16% to treatment failure/resistance, 3% to simplification, and 8 and 12%, respectively, to patients' and physicians' decisions; these percentages were 24, 6, 12, 14 and 24%, respectively, in those changing from ATV/r.
CONCLUSIONS: ATV/r- and EFV-based regimens meet the requirements of both efficacy and safety for initial combination antiretroviral regimen, which relate to better durability.
© 2014 British HIV Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HIV/AIDS; antiretroviral therapy; cohort study; persistence; response

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24655804     DOI: 10.1111/hiv.12144

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HIV Med        ISSN: 1464-2662            Impact factor:   3.180


  3 in total

1.  Brief Report: Factors Associated With the Selection of Initial Antiretroviral Therapy From 2009 to 2012.

Authors:  Michael S Saag; Andrew O Westfall; Stephen R Cole; William C Mathews; Daniel R Drozd; Kenneth H Mayer; Greer A Burkholder; Mari Kitahata; Eric M Maiese
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 3.731

2.  Switch rates, time-to-switch, and switch patterns of antiretroviral therapy in people living with human immunodeficiency virus in Japan, in a hospital-claim database.

Authors:  Daniel J Ruzicka; Naho Kuroishi; Nobuyuki Oshima; Ryuta Sakuma; Toshio Naito
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 3.090

3.  Efavirenz versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: A prospective study of HIV-positive individuals.

Authors:  Lauren E Cain; Ellen C Caniglia; Andrew Phillips; Ashley Olson; Roberto Muga; Santiago Pérez-Hoyos; Sophie Abgrall; Dominique Costagliola; Rafael Rubio; Inma Jarrín; Heiner Bucher; Jan Fehr; Ard van Sighem; Peter Reiss; François Dabis; Marie-Anne Vandenhende; Roger Logan; James Robins; Jonathan A C Sterne; Amy Justice; Janet Tate; Giota Touloumi; Vasilis Paparizos; Anna Esteve; Jordi Casabona; Rémonie Seng; Laurence Meyer; Sophie Jose; Caroline Sabin; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.889

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.