Jim Young1,2, Vincent Lo Re3, H Nina Kim4, Timothy R Sterling5, Keri N Althoff6, Kelly A Gebo7, M John Gill8, Michael A Horberg9, Angel M Mayor10, Richard D Moore7, Michael J Silverberg11, Marina B Klein1,2,12. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases and Chronic Viral Illness Service, Department of Medicine, Glen Site, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 5. Division of Infectious Diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 9. Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States, Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA. 10. Retrovirus Research Center, Internal Medicine Department, School of Medicine, Universidad Central del Caribe, Bayamón, Puerto Rico, USA. 11. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, USA. 12. CIHR Canadian HIV Trials Network, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite effective antiretroviral therapy, rates of end-stage liver disease (ESLD) remain high. It is not clear whether contemporary antiretrovirals contribute to the risk of ESLD. METHODS: We included patients from cohorts with validated ESLD data in the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design. Patients had to initiate antiretroviral therapy after 1 January 2004 with a nucleos(t)ide backbone of either abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine and a contemporary third (anchor) drug. Patients were followed until a first ESLD event, death, end of a cohort's ESLD validation period, loss to follow-up or 31 December 2015. We estimated associations between cumulative exposure to each drug and ESLD using a hierarchical Bayesian survival model with weakly informative prior distributions. RESULTS: Among 10 564 patients included from 12 cohorts, 62 had an ESLD event. Of the nine anchor drugs, boosted protease inhibitors atazanavir and darunavir had the strongest signals for ESLD, with increasing hazard ratios (HR) and narrowing credible intervals (CrI), from a prior HR of 1.5 (95% CrI 0.32-7.1) per 5 year's exposure to posterior HRs respectively of 1.8 (95% CrI 0.82-3.9) and 2.0 (95% CrI 0.86-4.7). Both backbones and efavirenz showed no signal. Hepatitis C coinfection was the most important covariate risk factor (HR 4.4, 95% CrI 2.6-7.0). CONCLUSIONS: While contemporary antiretrovirals pose less risk for ESLD than hepatitis coinfection, atazanavir and darunavir had a toxicity signal. We show how hierarchical Bayesian modelling can be used to detect toxicity signals in cohort event monitoring data even with complex treatments and few events.
PURPOSE: Despite effective antiretroviral therapy, rates of end-stage liver disease (ESLD) remain high. It is not clear whether contemporary antiretrovirals contribute to the risk of ESLD. METHODS: We included patients from cohorts with validated ESLD data in the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design. Patients had to initiate antiretroviral therapy after 1 January 2004 with a nucleos(t)ide backbone of either abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine and a contemporary third (anchor) drug. Patients were followed until a first ESLD event, death, end of a cohort's ESLD validation period, loss to follow-up or 31 December 2015. We estimated associations between cumulative exposure to each drug and ESLD using a hierarchical Bayesian survival model with weakly informative prior distributions. RESULTS: Among 10 564 patients included from 12 cohorts, 62 had an ESLD event. Of the nine anchor drugs, boosted protease inhibitors atazanavir and darunavir had the strongest signals for ESLD, with increasing hazard ratios (HR) and narrowing credible intervals (CrI), from a prior HR of 1.5 (95% CrI 0.32-7.1) per 5 year's exposure to posterior HRs respectively of 1.8 (95% CrI 0.82-3.9) and 2.0 (95% CrI 0.86-4.7). Both backbones and efavirenz showed no signal. Hepatitis C coinfection was the most important covariate risk factor (HR 4.4, 95% CrI 2.6-7.0). CONCLUSIONS: While contemporary antiretrovirals pose less risk for ESLD than hepatitis coinfection, atazanavir and darunavir had a toxicity signal. We show how hierarchical Bayesian modelling can be used to detect toxicity signals in cohort event monitoring data even with complex treatments and few events.
Authors: Eric S Johnson; Barbara A Bartman; Becky A Briesacher; Neil S Fleming; Tobias Gerhard; Cynthia J Kornegay; Parivash Nourjah; Brian Sauer; Glen T Schumock; Art Sedrakyan; Til Stürmer; Suzanne L West; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Colette J Smith; Lene Ryom; Rainer Weber; Philippe Morlat; Christian Pradier; Peter Reiss; Justyna D Kowalska; Stephane de Wit; Matthew Law; Wafaa el Sadr; Ole Kirk; Nina Friis-Moller; Antonella d'Arminio Monforte; Andrew N Phillips; Caroline A Sabin; Jens D Lundgren Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-07-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marina B Klein; Keri N Althoff; Yuezhou Jing; Bryan Lau; Mari Kitahata; Vincent Lo Re; Gregory D Kirk; Mark Hull; H Nina Kim; Giada Sebastiani; Erica E M Moodie; Michael J Silverberg; Timothy R Sterling; Jennifer E Thorne; Angela Cescon; Sonia Napravnik; Joe Eron; M John Gill; Amy Justice; Marion G Peters; James J Goedert; Angel Mayor; Chloe L Thio; Edward R Cachay; Richard Moore Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Nathan Ford; Zara Shubber; Andrew Hill; Marco Vitoria; Meg Doherty; Edward J Mills; Andy Gray Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 3.240