Sara Lodi1, Shweta Sharma, Jens D Lundgren, Andrew N Phillips, Stephen R Cole, Roger Logan, Brian K Agan, Abdel Babiker, Hartwig Klinker, Haitao Chu, Matthew Law, James D Neaton, Miguel A Hernán. 1. aDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts bDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA cDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, København, Denmark dResearch Department of Infection & Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom eDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina fInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences gHenry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, USA hMedical Research Council, Clinical Trials Unit in University College London, London, United Kingdom iUniversity of Wuerzburg Medical Center, Würzburg, Germany jThe Kirby Institute, Sydney, Australia kDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health lHarvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) trial found a lower risk of a composite clinical outcome in HIV-positive individuals assigned to immediate initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) compared with those assigned to deferred initiation. However, 30% of those assigned to deferred initiation started ART earlier than the protocol specified. To supplement the published intention-to-treat (ITT) effect estimates, here we estimate the per-protocol effect of immediate versus deferred ART initiation in START. DESIGN: The START trial randomized 4685 HIV-positive participants with CD4 cell counts more than 500 cells/μl to start ART immediately after randomization (immediate initiation group) or to wait until the CD4 cell count dropped below 350 cells/μl or an AIDS diagnosis (deferred initiation group). METHODS: We used the parametric g-formula to estimate and compare the cumulative 5-year risk of the composite clinical outcome in the immediate initiation group, and deferred initiation groups had all the trial participants adhered to the protocol. RESULTS: We estimated that the 5-year risk of the composite outcome would have been 3.2% under immediate ART initiation and 7.0% under deferred initiation. The difference of 3.8% (95% confidence interval 1.5, 6.5) was larger than the ITT effect estimate of 3.1%, corresponding to a difference in effect estimates of 0.72% (-0.35, 2.35). CONCLUSION: The ITT effect estimate may underestimate the benefit of immediate ART initiation by 23%. This estimate can be used by patients and policy-makers who need to understand the full extent of the benefit of changes in ART initiation policies.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) trial found a lower risk of a composite clinical outcome in HIV-positive individuals assigned to immediate initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) compared with those assigned to deferred initiation. However, 30% of those assigned to deferred initiation started ART earlier than the protocol specified. To supplement the published intention-to-treat (ITT) effect estimates, here we estimate the per-protocol effect of immediate versus deferred ART initiation in START. DESIGN: The START trial randomized 4685 HIV-positive participants with CD4 cell counts more than 500 cells/μl to start ART immediately after randomization (immediate initiation group) or to wait until the CD4 cell count dropped below 350 cells/μl or an AIDS diagnosis (deferred initiation group). METHODS: We used the parametric g-formula to estimate and compare the cumulative 5-year risk of the composite clinical outcome in the immediate initiation group, and deferred initiation groups had all the trial participants adhered to the protocol. RESULTS: We estimated that the 5-year risk of the composite outcome would have been 3.2% under immediate ART initiation and 7.0% under deferred initiation. The difference of 3.8% (95% confidence interval 1.5, 6.5) was larger than the ITT effect estimate of 3.1%, corresponding to a difference in effect estimates of 0.72% (-0.35, 2.35). CONCLUSION: The ITT effect estimate may underestimate the benefit of immediate ART initiation by 23%. This estimate can be used by patients and policy-makers who need to understand the full extent of the benefit of changes in ART initiation policies.
Authors: Jens D Lundgren; Abdel G Babiker; Fred Gordin; Sean Emery; Birgit Grund; Shweta Sharma; Anchalee Avihingsanon; David A Cooper; Gerd Fätkenheuer; Josep M Llibre; Jean-Michel Molina; Paula Munderi; Mauro Schechter; Robin Wood; Karin L Klingman; Simon Collins; H Clifford Lane; Andrew N Phillips; James D Neaton Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eleanor J Murray; James M Robins; George R Seage; Sara Lodi; Emily P Hyle; Krishna P Reddy; Kenneth A Freedberg; Miguel A Hernán Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Jacqueline E Rudolph; Stephen R Cole; Joseph J Eron; Angela D Kashuba; Adaora A Adimora Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Haidong Lu; Stephen R Cole; H Irene Hall; Enrique F Schisterman; Tiffany L Breger; Jessie K Edwards; Daniel Westreich Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Sara Lodi; Andrew Phillips; Jens Lundgren; Roger Logan; Shweta Sharma; Stephen R Cole; Abdel Babiker; Matthew Law; Haitao Chu; Dana Byrne; Andrzej Horban; Jonathan A C Sterne; Kholoud Porter; Caroline Sabin; Dominique Costagliola; Sophie Abgrall; John Gill; Giota Touloumi; Antonio G Pacheco; Ard van Sighem; Peter Reiss; Heiner C Bucher; Alexandra Montoliu Giménez; Inmaculada Jarrin; Linda Wittkop; Laurence Meyer; Santiago Perez-Hoyos; Amy Justice; James D Neaton; Miguel A Hernán Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.363
Authors: Jacqueline E Rudolph; Ashley I Naimi; Daniel J Westreich; Edward H Kennedy; Enrique F Schisterman Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.860