Clinical efficacy of antiretroviral combination therapy based on protease inhibitors or non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors: indirect comparison of controlled trials. Issue 7434 (23rd January 2004)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Clinical efficacy of antiretroviral combination therapy based on protease inhibitors or non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors: indirect comparison of controlled trials. Issue 7434 (23rd January 2004)
- Main Title:
- Clinical efficacy of antiretroviral combination therapy based on protease inhibitors or non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors: indirect comparison of controlled trials
- Authors:
- Yazdanpanah, Yazdan
Sissoko, Daouda
Egger, Matthias
Mouton, Yves
Zwahlen, Marcel
Chêne, Geneviève - Abstract:
- Abstract: Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of triple antiretroviral regimens based on protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) in adults positive for antibodies to HIV-1. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis using indirect comparisons of clinical trials comparing three drug regimens based on two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and either a protease inhibitor or an NNRTI with two drug regimens (two NRTIs). Participants had no previous exposure to protease inhibitors or NNRTIs. Data sources Medline, the Cochrane controlled trials register, Aidstrials, Aidsdrugs, conference proceedings, and trial registers. Main outcome measure Progression to AIDS or death. Results 14 trials, totalling 6785 patients, were identified. Most patients had been exposed to an NRTI and had advanced immunodeficiency at baseline; 1096 progressed to AIDS or died. Seven trials assessed protease inhibitors based triple regimens and seven assessed NNRTI based triple regimens (nevirapine or delavirdine). Triple therapy was more effective than dual therapy. The effect was pronounced for protease inhibitor based regimens (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.58) but non-significant for NNRTI based regimens (0.90, 0.71 to 1.15). Indirect comparison of the two regimens gave an odds ratio of 0.54 (0.49 to 0.73) in favour of protease inhibitor based treatments. Increases in CD4 cell counts were smaller andAbstract: Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of triple antiretroviral regimens based on protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) in adults positive for antibodies to HIV-1. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis using indirect comparisons of clinical trials comparing three drug regimens based on two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and either a protease inhibitor or an NNRTI with two drug regimens (two NRTIs). Participants had no previous exposure to protease inhibitors or NNRTIs. Data sources Medline, the Cochrane controlled trials register, Aidstrials, Aidsdrugs, conference proceedings, and trial registers. Main outcome measure Progression to AIDS or death. Results 14 trials, totalling 6785 patients, were identified. Most patients had been exposed to an NRTI and had advanced immunodeficiency at baseline; 1096 progressed to AIDS or died. Seven trials assessed protease inhibitors based triple regimens and seven assessed NNRTI based triple regimens (nevirapine or delavirdine). Triple therapy was more effective than dual therapy. The effect was pronounced for protease inhibitor based regimens (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.58) but non-significant for NNRTI based regimens (0.90, 0.71 to 1.15). Indirect comparison of the two regimens gave an odds ratio of 0.54 (0.49 to 0.73) in favour of protease inhibitor based treatments. Increases in CD4 cell counts were smaller and suppression of viral replication less with NNRTI based regimens. Conclusions Indirect evidence shows that protease inhibitor based triple regimens are superior to regimens based on the NNRTIs nevirapine and delavirdine in patients with advanced immunodeficiency who have been exposed to NRTIs. Large trials with clinical end points are required. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- BMJ. Volume 328:Issue 7434(2004)
- Journal:
- BMJ
- Issue:
- Volume 328:Issue 7434(2004)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 328, Issue 7434 (2004)
- Year:
- 2004
- Volume:
- 328
- Issue:
- 7434
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2004-0328-7434-0000
- Page Start:
- 249
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2004-01-23
- Subjects:
- Medicine -- Periodicals
Medicine -- Periodicals
Medicine
Periodicals
610 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.bmj.com/archive ↗
http://www.jstor.org/journals/09598138.html ↗
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/3/ ↗
http://www.bmj.com/bmj/ ↗
http://www.bmj.com/archive ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1136/bmj.37995.435787.A6 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0007-1447
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 25886.xml