Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy: A Meta-Analysis

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorMathis, Steven
dc.contributor.authorKhanlari, Babak
dc.contributor.authorPulido, Francisco
dc.contributor.authorSchechter, Mauro
dc.contributor.authorNegredo, Eugenia
dc.contributor.authorNelson, Mark
dc.contributor.authorVernazza, Pietro
dc.contributor.authorCahn, Pedro
dc.contributor.authorMeynard, Jean-Luc
dc.contributor.authorArribas, Jose
dc.contributor.authorBucher, Heiner C.
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-23T18:53:33Z
dc.date.available2024-05-23T18:53:33Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.
dc.identifier.citationMathis, S., Khanlari, B., Pulido, F., Schechter, M., Negredo, E., Nelson, M., ... Bucher, H. C. (2011). Effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE.
dc.identifier.otherDOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022003
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.huesped.org.ar/handle/123456789/1099
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPLoS ONE
dc.subjectProtease Inhibitor Monotherapy
dc.subjectCombination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy
dc.subjectMeta-Analysis
dc.titleEffectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy: A Meta-Analysis

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
147_2011_ Mathis_Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy A Meta-Analysis.pdf
Size:
554.12 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Articulos científicos