Cargando…
Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy: A Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND: The unparalleled success of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) is based on the combination of three drugs from two classes. There is insufficient evidence whether simplification to ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy in virologically suppressed HIV-infected pat...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139616/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21811554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022003 |
_version_ | 1782208479111413760 |
---|---|
author | Mathis, Sandra Khanlari, Bettina Pulido, Federico Schechter, Mauro Negredo, Eugenia Nelson, Mark Vernazza, Pietro Cahn, Pedro Meynard, Jean-Luc Arribas, Jose Bucher, Heiner C. |
author_facet | Mathis, Sandra Khanlari, Bettina Pulido, Federico Schechter, Mauro Negredo, Eugenia Nelson, Mark Vernazza, Pietro Cahn, Pedro Meynard, Jean-Luc Arribas, Jose Bucher, Heiner C. |
author_sort | Mathis, Sandra |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The unparalleled success of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) is based on the combination of three drugs from two classes. There is insufficient evidence whether simplification to ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients is effective and safe to reduce cART side effects and costs. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings and trial registries to identify all randomised controlled trials comparing PI/r monotherapy to cART in suppressed patients. We calculated in an intention to treat (loss-of follow-up, discontinuation of assigned drugs equals failure) and per-protocol analysis (exclusion of protocol violators following randomisation) and based on three different definitions for virological failure pooled risk ratios for remaining virologically suppressed. FINDINGS: We identified 10 trials comparing 3 different PIs with cART based on a PI/r plus 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors in 1189 patients. With the most conservative approach (viral load <50 copies/ml on two consecutive measurements), the risk ratios for viral suppression at 48 weeks of PI/r monotherapy compared to cART were in the ITT analysis 0.94 8 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.00) p = 0.06; risk difference −0.06 (95%CI -0.11 to 0) p = 0.05, p for heterogeneity = 0.08, I(2) = 43.1%) and in the PP analysis 0.93 ((95%CI 0.90 to 0.97) p<0.001; risk difference −0.07 (95%CI −0.10 to −0.03) p<0.001, p for heterogeneity = 0.44, I(2) = 0%). Reintroduction of cART in 44 patients with virological failure led in 93% to de-novo viral suppression. INTERPRETATION: Virologically well suppressed HIV-infected patients have a lower chance to maintain viral suppression when switching from cART to PI/r monotherapy. Failing patients achieve high rates of de-novo viral suppression following reintroduction of reverse transcriptase inhibitors. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3139616 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-31396162011-08-02 Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy: A Meta-Analysis Mathis, Sandra Khanlari, Bettina Pulido, Federico Schechter, Mauro Negredo, Eugenia Nelson, Mark Vernazza, Pietro Cahn, Pedro Meynard, Jean-Luc Arribas, Jose Bucher, Heiner C. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The unparalleled success of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) is based on the combination of three drugs from two classes. There is insufficient evidence whether simplification to ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients is effective and safe to reduce cART side effects and costs. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings and trial registries to identify all randomised controlled trials comparing PI/r monotherapy to cART in suppressed patients. We calculated in an intention to treat (loss-of follow-up, discontinuation of assigned drugs equals failure) and per-protocol analysis (exclusion of protocol violators following randomisation) and based on three different definitions for virological failure pooled risk ratios for remaining virologically suppressed. FINDINGS: We identified 10 trials comparing 3 different PIs with cART based on a PI/r plus 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors in 1189 patients. With the most conservative approach (viral load <50 copies/ml on two consecutive measurements), the risk ratios for viral suppression at 48 weeks of PI/r monotherapy compared to cART were in the ITT analysis 0.94 8 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.00) p = 0.06; risk difference −0.06 (95%CI -0.11 to 0) p = 0.05, p for heterogeneity = 0.08, I(2) = 43.1%) and in the PP analysis 0.93 ((95%CI 0.90 to 0.97) p<0.001; risk difference −0.07 (95%CI −0.10 to −0.03) p<0.001, p for heterogeneity = 0.44, I(2) = 0%). Reintroduction of cART in 44 patients with virological failure led in 93% to de-novo viral suppression. INTERPRETATION: Virologically well suppressed HIV-infected patients have a lower chance to maintain viral suppression when switching from cART to PI/r monotherapy. Failing patients achieve high rates of de-novo viral suppression following reintroduction of reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Public Library of Science 2011-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC3139616/ /pubmed/21811554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022003 Text en Mathis et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Mathis, Sandra Khanlari, Bettina Pulido, Federico Schechter, Mauro Negredo, Eugenia Nelson, Mark Vernazza, Pietro Cahn, Pedro Meynard, Jean-Luc Arribas, Jose Bucher, Heiner C. Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy: A Meta-Analysis |
title | Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy: A Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy: A Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy: A Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy: A Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy: A Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: a meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139616/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21811554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022003 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mathissandra effectivenessofproteaseinhibitormonotherapyversuscombinationantiretroviralmaintenancetherapyametaanalysis AT khanlaribettina effectivenessofproteaseinhibitormonotherapyversuscombinationantiretroviralmaintenancetherapyametaanalysis AT pulidofederico effectivenessofproteaseinhibitormonotherapyversuscombinationantiretroviralmaintenancetherapyametaanalysis AT schechtermauro effectivenessofproteaseinhibitormonotherapyversuscombinationantiretroviralmaintenancetherapyametaanalysis AT negredoeugenia effectivenessofproteaseinhibitormonotherapyversuscombinationantiretroviralmaintenancetherapyametaanalysis AT nelsonmark effectivenessofproteaseinhibitormonotherapyversuscombinationantiretroviralmaintenancetherapyametaanalysis AT vernazzapietro effectivenessofproteaseinhibitormonotherapyversuscombinationantiretroviralmaintenancetherapyametaanalysis AT cahnpedro effectivenessofproteaseinhibitormonotherapyversuscombinationantiretroviralmaintenancetherapyametaanalysis AT meynardjeanluc effectivenessofproteaseinhibitormonotherapyversuscombinationantiretroviralmaintenancetherapyametaanalysis AT arribasjose effectivenessofproteaseinhibitormonotherapyversuscombinationantiretroviralmaintenancetherapyametaanalysis AT bucherheinerc effectivenessofproteaseinhibitormonotherapyversuscombinationantiretroviralmaintenancetherapyametaanalysis |