Search

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines consider regimens consisting of either ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone among their recommended and alternative first-line antiretroviral regimens. However, these guidelines are based on limited evidence from randomized clinical trials and clinical experience. METHODS: We compared these regimens with respect to clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes using data from prospective studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals in Europe and the United States in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration, 2004-2013. Antiretroviral therapy-naive and AIDS-free individuals were followed from the time they started a lopinavir or an atazanavir regimen. We estimated the 'intention-to-treat' effect for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens on each of the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 6668 individuals started a lopinavir regimen (213 deaths, 457 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths), and 4301 individuals started an atazanavir regimen (83 deaths, 157 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths). The adjusted intention-to-treat hazard ratios for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], .53-.91) for death, 0.67 (95% CI, .55-.82) for AIDS-defining illness or death, and 0.91 (95% CI, .84-.99) for virologic failure at 12 months. The mean 12-month increase in CD4 count was 8.15 (95% CI, -.13 to 16.43) cells/microL higher in the atazanavir group. Estimates differed by NRTI backbone. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates are consistent with a lower mortality, a lower incidence of AIDS-defining illness, a greater 12-month increase in CD4 cell count, and a smaller risk of virologic failure at 12 months for atazanavir compared with lopinavir regimens.

Contains fulltext : 97513.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Most clinical guidelines recommend that AIDS-free, HIV-infected persons with CD4 cell counts below 0.350 x 10(9) cells/L initiate combined antiretroviral therapy (cART), but the optimal CD4 cell count at which cART should be initiated remains a matter of debate. OBJECTIVE: To identify the optimal CD4 cell count at which cART should be initiated. DESIGN: Prospective observational data from the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration and dynamic marginal structural models were used to compare cART initiation strategies for CD4 thresholds between 0.200 and 0.500 x 10(9) cells/L. SETTING: HIV clinics in Europe and the Veterans Health Administration system in the United States. PATIENTS: 20, 971 HIV-infected, therapy-naive persons with baseline CD4 cell counts at or above 0.500 x 10(9) cells/L and no previous AIDS-defining illnesses, of whom 8392 had a CD4 cell count that decreased into the range of 0.200 to 0.499 x 10(9) cells/L and were included in the analysis. MEASUREMENTS: Hazard ratios and survival proportions for all-cause mortality and a combined end point of AIDS-defining illness or death. RESULTS: Compared with initiating cART at the CD4 cell count threshold of 0.500 x 10(9) cells/L, the mortality hazard ratio was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.22) for the 0.350 threshold and 1.20 (CI, 0.97 to 1.48) for the 0.200 threshold. The corresponding hazard ratios were 1.38 (CI, 1.23 to 1.56) and 1.90 (CI, 1.67 to 2.15), respectively, for the combined end point of AIDS-defining illness or death. Limitations: CD4 cell count at cART initiation was not randomized. Residual confounding may exist. CONCLUSION: Initiation of cART at a threshold CD4 count of 0.500 x 10(9) cells/L increases AIDS-free survival. However, mortality did not vary substantially with the use of CD4 thresholds between 0.300 and 0.500 x 10(9) cells/L.

Contains fulltext : 88938.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) on mortality among HIV-infected individuals after appropriate adjustment for time-varying confounding by indication. DESIGN: A collaboration of 12 prospective cohort studies from Europe and the United States (the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration) that includes 62 760 HIV-infected, therapy-naive individuals followed for an average of 3.3 years. Inverse probability weighting of marginal structural models was used to adjust for measured confounding by indication. RESULTS: Two thousand and thirty-nine individuals died during the follow-up. The mortality hazard ratio was 0.48 (95% confidence interval 0.41-0.57) for cART initiation versus no initiation. In analyses stratified by CD4 cell count at baseline, the corresponding hazard ratios were 0.29 (0.22-0.37) for less than 100 cells/microl, 0.33 (0.25-0.44) for 100 to less than 200 cells/microl, 0.38 (0.28-0.52) for 200 to less than 350 cells/microl, 0.55 (0.41-0.74) for 350 to less than 500 cells/microl, and 0.77 (0.58-1.01) for 500 cells/microl or more. The estimated hazard ratio varied with years since initiation of cART from 0.57 (0.49-0.67) for less than 1 year since initiation to 0.21 (0.14-0.31) for 5 years or more (P value for trend <0.001). CONCLUSION: We estimated that cART halved the average mortality rate in HIV-infected individuals. The mortality reduction was greater in those with worse prognosis at the start of follow-up.

Contains fulltext : 80963.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: The extent to which mortality differs following individual acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)-defining events (ADEs) has not been assessed among patients initiating combination antiretroviral therapy. METHODS: We analyzed data from 31,620 patients with no prior ADEs who started combination antiretroviral therapy. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate mortality hazard ratios for each ADE that occurred in >50 patients, after stratification by cohort and adjustment for sex, HIV transmission group, number of antiretroviral drugs initiated, regimen, age, date of starting combination antiretroviral therapy, and CD4+ cell count and HIV RNA load at initiation of combination antiretroviral therapy. ADEs that occurred in <50 patients were grouped together to form a "rare ADEs" category. RESULTS: During a median follow-up period of 43 months (interquartile range, 19-70 months), 2880 ADEs were diagnosed in 2262 patients; 1146 patients died. The most common ADEs were esophageal candidiasis (in 360 patients), Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (320 patients), and Kaposi sarcoma (308 patients). The greatest mortality hazard ratio was associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (hazard ratio, 17.59; 95% confidence interval, 13.84-22.35) and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (hazard ratio, 10.0; 95% confidence interval, 6.70-14.92). Three groups of ADEs were identified on the basis of the ranked hazard ratios with bootstrapped confidence intervals: severe (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy [hazard ratio, 7.26; 95% confidence interval, 5.55-9.48]), moderate (cryptococcosis, cerebral toxoplasmosis, AIDS dementia complex, disseminated Mycobacterium avium complex, and rare ADEs [hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.76-3.13]), and mild (all other ADEs [hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.00]). CONCLUSIONS: In the combination antiretroviral therapy era, mortality rates subsequent to an ADE de

Contains fulltext : 70499.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differences in short-term virologic failure among commonly used antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens translate to differences in clinical events in antiretroviral-naive patients initiating ART. DESIGN: Observational cohort study of patients initiating ART between January 2000 and December 2005. SETTING: The Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration (ART-CC) is a collaboration of 15 HIV cohort studies from Canada, Europe, and the United States. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: A total of 13 546 antiretroviral-naive HIV-positive patients initiating ART with efavirenz, nevirapine, lopinavir/ritonavir, nelfinavir, or abacavir as third drugs in combination with a zidovudine and lamivudine nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Short-term (24-week) virologic failure (>500 copies/ml) and clinical events within 2 years of ART initiation (incident AIDS-defining event, death, and a composite measure of these two outcomes). RESULTS: Compared with efavirenz as initial third drug, short-term virologic failure was more common with all other third drugs evaluated; nevirapine (adjusted odds ratio = 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.58-2.22), lopinavir/ritonavir (1.32, 95% CI = 1.12-1.57), nelfinavir (3.20, 95% CI = 2.74-3.74), and abacavir (2.13, 95% CI = 1.82-2.50). However, the rate of clinical events within 2 years of ART initiation appeared higher only with nevirapine (adjusted hazard ratio for composite outcome measure 1.27, 95% CI = 1.04-1.56) and abacavir (1.22, 95% CI = 1.00-1.48). CONCLUSION: Among antiretroviral-naive patients initiating therapy, between-ART regimen, differences in short-term virologic failure do not necessarily translate to differences in clinical outcomes. Our results should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of residual confounding by indication.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome. DESIGN: Combined analysis of data from three meta-epidemiological studies based on collections of meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or non-blinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates. RESULTS: In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and non-drug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses Udgivelsesdato: 2008/3/15