Browsing by Author "Vernazza, Pietro"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy: A Meta-Analysis
    (2011) Mathis, Steven; Khanlari, Babak; Pulido, Francisco; Schechter, Mauro; Negredo, Eugenia; Nelson, Mark; Vernazza, Pietro; Cahn, Pedro; Meynard, Jean-Luc; Arribas, Jose; Bucher, Heiner C.
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Randomized Trial to Evaluate Indinavir/Ritonavir versus Saquinavir/Ritonavir in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1–Infected Patients: The MaxCmin1 Trial
    (2003-09-01) Dragsted, Ulrik Bak; Gerstoft, Jan; Pedersen, Court; Peters, Barry; Duran, Adriana; Obel, Niels; Castagna, Antonella; Cahn, Pedro; Clumeck, Nathan; Bruun, Johan N; Benetucci, Jorge; Hill, Andrew; Cassetti, Isabel; Vernazza, Pietro; Youle, Mike; Fox, Zoe; MaxCmin1 Trial Group
    This trial assessed the rate of virological failure at 48 weeks in adult human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1–infected patients assigned indinavir/ritonavir (Idv/Rtv; 800/100 mg 2 times daily) or saquinavir/ritonavir (Sqv/Rtv; 1000/100 mg 2 times daily) in an open-label, randomized (1:1), multicenter, phase 4 design. Three hundred six patients began the assigned treatment. At 48 weeks, virological failure was seen in 43 (27%) of 158 and 37 (25%) of 148 patients in the Idv/Rtv and Sqv/Rtv arms, respectively. The time to virological failure did not differ between study arms (P=.76). When switching from randomized treatment was counted as failure, this was seen in 78 of 158 patients in the Idv/Rtv arm, versus 51 of 148 patients in the Sqv/Rtv arm (P=.009). A switch from the randomized treatment occurred in 64 (41%) of 158 patients in the Idv/Rtv arm, versus 40 (27%) of 148 patients in the Sqv/Rtv arm (P=.013). Sixty-four percent of the switches occurred because of adverse events. A greater number of treatment-limiting adverse events were observed in the Idv/Rtv arm, relative to the Sqv/Rtv arm. In conclusion, Rtv-boosed Sqv and Idv were found to have comparable antiretroviral effects in the doses studied