| Literature DB >> 32571409 |
Shuai Chen1,2, Yang Han1, Xiao-Jing Song1, Yan-Ling Li1, Ting Zhu1, Hong-Zhou Lu3, Xiao-Ping Tang4, Tong Zhang5, Min Zhao6, Yun He7, Sheng-Hua He8, Min Wang9, Yong-Zhen Li10, Shao-Biao Huang11, Yong Li12, Jing Liu13, Wei Cao14, Tai-Sheng Li1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is not completely clear whether a very high pre-therapy viral load (≥ 500 000 copies/ml) can impair the virological response. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of very high baseline HIV-RNA levels on long-term virological responses under one type of regimen.Entities:
Keywords: Antiretroviral therapy; Baseline RNA; HIV; Treatment outcome; Viral load; Virologic response
Year: 2020 PMID: 32571409 PMCID: PMC7310120 DOI: 10.1186/s40249-020-00700-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Poverty ISSN: 2049-9957 Impact factor: 4.520
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population
| Demographic and clinical characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Males | 565 (74.5%) |
| Age (years) | 33 (27–41) |
| Year of ART initiation | |
| 2009 | 240 (31.7%) |
| 2013–2015 | 518 (68.3%) |
| Follow-up time (weeks) | 144 (108–276) |
| Baseline viral load (copies/ml) | |
| < 100 000 | 499 (65.8%) |
| ≥ 100 000 and < 500 000 | 211 (27.8%) |
| ≥ 500 000 | 48 (6.3%) |
| Mode of transmission | |
| Homosexual | 290 (38.3%) |
| Heterosexual | 378 (49.9%) |
| Bisexual | 21 (2.8%) |
| Othersa | 15 (2.0%) |
| Unknown | 54 (7.1%) |
| Baseline CD4 level (cells/mm3) | |
| < 100 | 96 (12.7%) |
| ≥ 100 and < 200 | 143 (18.9%) |
| ≥ 200 and < 350 | 338 (44.6%) |
| ≥ 350 | 181 (23.9%) |
| Subtype | |
| AE | 224 (29.6%) |
| B/C/BC | 111 (14.6%) |
| Others | 17 (2.2%) |
| Unknown | 406 (53.6%) |
| Regimen | |
| TDF + 3TC + EFV | 517 (68.2%) |
| 3TC + AZT + NVP | 78 (10.3%) |
| 3TC + AZT + EFV | 14 (1.8%) |
| 3TC + TDF + NVP | 7 (0.9%) |
| Other 2NRTIs + NNRTI | 142 (18.7%) |
| Serum HBsAg status | |
| Positive | 89 (12.1%) |
| Negative | 645 (87.9%) |
| Serum HCV-Ab status | |
| Positive | 29 (4.0%) |
| Negative | 699 (96.0%) |
| Resistance | |
| Low, intermediate and high | 16 (4.5%) |
| Susceptible and potential low | 337 (95.5%) |
3TC Lamivudine, ART Antiretroviral therapy, AZT Zidovudine, EFV Efavirenz, HBsAg Surface antigen of the hepatitis B virus, HCV-Ab Hepatitis C antibody, IQR Interquartile ranges, NNRTI Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, NRTI Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, NVP Nevirapine, TDF Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate
aIncludes blood transfusion, exposure to infected needles, etc.
Fig. 1Percentage of patients based on baseline HIV-RNA level who had achieved virological suppression in different follow-up. P < 0.001 on Chi-square analysis
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier curve of time to virologic suppression based on baseline HIV-RNA levels. Log-rank P < 0.001
Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models of the time to virological suppression among 758 treatment-naïve patients initiating NNRTI-based ART. Variables were mutually adjusted in the multivariate model that included age
| Variable | Crude | Adjusted | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RH | (95% | RH | (95% | |||
| 0.757 | (0.641–0.894) | 0.001 | 0.755 | (0.622–0.916) | ||
| 0.981 | (0.839–1.148) | 0.812 | – | – | ||
| < 100 000 | 1.000 | – | – | 1.000 | – | – |
| 100 000–500 000 | 0.628 | (0.532–0.741) | 0.602 | (0.497–0.730) | ||
| ≥ 500 000 | 0.477 | (0.349–0.652) | 0.455 | (0.319–0.648) | ||
| < 100 | 1.000 | – | – | 1.000 | – | – |
| 100–200 | 1.057 | (0.809–1.383) | 0.684 | 0.970 | (0.740–1.272) | 0.826 |
| 200–350 | 1.227 | (0.970–1.551) | 1.046 | (0.823–1.331) | 0.712 | |
| > 350 | 1.313 | (0.016–1.697) | 1.181 | (0.931–1.532) | 0.209 | |
| 0.928 | (0.741–1.164) | 0.520 | – | – | – | |
| 0.878 | (0.605–1.275) | 0.495 | – | – | – | |
| 0.910 | (0.722–1.147) | 0. | – | – | – | |
| Others | 1.000 | – | – | |||
| Homosexual | 1.093 | (0.649–1.839) | 0.738 | – | – | – |
| Heterosexual | 1.196 | (0.713–2.006) | 0.498 | – | – | – |
| Bisexual | 0.804 | (0.408–1.582) | 0.527 | – | – | – |
| Other 2NRTIs + NNRTI | 1.000 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 3TC + TDF + EFV | 0.963 | (0.790–1.175) | 0.711 | – | – | – |
| 3TC + AZT + NVP | 0.923 | (0.694–1.227) | 0.581 | – | – | – |
| 3TC + TDF + NVP | 0.669 | (0.383–1.167) | 0.157 | – | – | – |
| 3TC + AZT + EFV | 0.742 | (0.346–1.590) | 0.443 | – | – | – |
| 0.991 | (0.898–1.093) | 0.858 | – | – | – | |
| 0.757 | (0.450–1.274) | 0.294 | – | – | – | |
3TC Lamivudine, AZT Zidovudine, CI Confidence interval, EFV Efavirenz, HBsAg Surface antigen of the hepatitis B virus, HCV-Ab Hepatitis C antibody, NNRTI Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, NRTI Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, NVP Nevirapine, TDF Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate
Univariate and adjusted Logistic regression analysis of OR of incomplete suppression among 758 treatment-naïve patients initiating NNRTI-based ART
| Variable | Univariate analysis | Adjusted analysis † | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (95% | (95% | |||||
| 1.608 | (0.861–3.004) | 0.136 | 1.533 | (0.805–2.917) | 0.193 | |
| 0.993 | (0.969–1.018) | 0.595 | – | – | ||
| 0.743 | (0.448–1.230) | 0.248 | – | – | ||
| < 100 000 | 1.000 | – | – | 1.000 | – | – |
| 100 000–500 000 | 2.937 | (1.712–5.041) | 2.736 | (1.577–4.747) | ||
| ≥ 500 000 | 6.458 | (3.061–13.625) | 6.084 | (2.761–13.407) | ||
| < 100 | 1.000 | – | – | 1.000 | – | – |
| 1.057 | (0.809–1.383) | 1.386 | (0.633–3.307) | 0.414 | ||
| 200–350 | 1.227 | (0.970–1.551) | 0.970 | (0.457–2.059) | 0.938 | |
| > 350 | 1.313 | (0.016–1.697) | 0.120 | 0.478 | (0.190–1.206) | 0.118 |
| 1.246 | (0.612–2.536) | 0.545 | – | – | – | |
| 1.197 | (0.350–4.093) | 0.774 | – | – | – | |
| 1.029 | (0.734–1.444) | 0.866 | – | – | – | |
| 1.306 | (0.631–2.705) | 0.472 | – | – | – | |
| 1.543 | (0.328–7.261) | 0.583 | – | – | – | |
CI Confidence interval, HBsAg Surface antigen of the hepatitis B virus, HCV-Ab Hepatitis C antibody
†Significance in Omnibus Test of Model Coefficients is < 0.001. Significance in Hosmer and Lemeshow Test is 0.498
Univariate and adjusted Logistic regression analysis of OR of viral rebound after excluding blips among 758 treatment-naïve patients initiating NNRTI-based ART
| Variable | Univariate analysis | Adjusted analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (95% | (95% | |||||
| 1.259 | (0.461–3.440) | 0.653 | – | – | – | |
| 0.976 | (0.932–1.021) | 0.286 | – | – | ||
| 0.551 | (0.267–1.137) | 0.107 | – | – | ||
| < 100 000 | 1.000 | – | – | 1.000 | – | – |
| 100 000–500 000 | 2.781 | (1.113–6.950) | 2.405 | (0.943–6.133) | 0.066 | |
| ≥500 000 | 5.182 | (1.592–17.555) | 3.671 | (1.009–13.355) | ||
| < 100 | 1.000 | – | – | 1.000 | – | – |
| 100–200 | 0.781 | (0.254–2.402) | 0.666 | 0.936 | (0.297–0.946) | 0.910 |
| 200–350 | 0.318 | (0.104–0.971) | 0.469 | (0.144–1.524) | 0.208 | |
| > 350 | 0.250 | (0.061–1.024) | 0.350 | (0.082–1.494) | 0.156 | |
| 2.049 | (0.071–5.668) | 0.167 | – | – | – | |
| 1.060 | (0.138–8.148) | 0.955 | – | – | – | |
| 1.054 | (0.594–1.871) | 0.858 | – | – | – | |
| 3.168 | (0.777–12.922) | 0.108 | – | – | – | |
| 1.747 | (0.210–14.501) | 0.605 | – | – | – | |
CI Confidence interval, HBsAg Surface antigen of the hepatitis B virus, HCV-Ab Hepatitis C antibody
aSignificance in Omnibus Test of Model Coefficients is 0.037. Significance in Hosmer and Lemeshow Test is 0.788