Effects of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone on the efficacy of first-line boosted highly active antiretroviral therapy based on protease inhibitors: meta-regression analysis of 12 clinical trials in 5168 patients

Pharmacology Research Laboratories, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
HIV Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.45). 10/2009; 10(9):527-35. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-1293.2009.00724.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) and abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) are widely used with ritonavir (RTV)-boosted protease inhibitors (PIs) as first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), but there is conflicting evidence on their relative efficacy. The ACTG 5202 and BICOMBO trials suggested higher efficacy for TDF/FTC, whereas the HEAT trial showed no efficacy difference between the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbones.
A systematic MEDLINE search identified 21 treatment arms in 12 clinical trials of 5168 antiretroviral-naïve patients, where TDF/FTC (n=3399) or ABC/3TC (n=1769) was used with RTV-boosted PI. For each NRTI backbone and RTV-boosted PI, the percentage of patients with viral load <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL at week 48 by standardized Intent to Treat, Time to Loss of Virological Failure (ITT TLOVR) analysis were combined using inverse-variance weighting. The effect of baseline HIV RNA, CD4 cell count and choice of NRTI backbone were examined using a weighted analysis of covariance.
Across all the trials, HIV RNA suppression rates were significantly higher for those with baseline viral load below 100,000 copies/mL (77.2%) vs. above 100,000 copies/mL (70.9%) (P=0.0005). For the trials of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) and fosamprenavir/ritonavir (FAPV/r) using either TDF/FTC or ABC/3TC, the HIV RNA responses were significantly lower when ABC/3TC was used, relative to TDF/FTC, for all patients (P=0.0015) and for patients with baseline viral load <100,000 copies/mL (70.1%vs. 80.6%, P=0.0161), and was borderline for those with viral load >100,000 copies/mL (67.5%vs. 71.5%, P=0.0523).
This systematic meta-regression analysis suggests higher efficacy for first-line use of a TDF/FTC NRTI backbone with boosted PIs, relative to use of ABC/3TC. However, this effect may be confounded by differences between the trials in terms of baseline characteristics, patient management or adherence.

Download full-text


Available from: Andrew Hill, Oct 13, 2014
  • Source
    Recent Translational Research in HIV/AIDS, 11/2011; , ISBN: 978-953-307-719-2
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily tenofovir/emtricitabine compared with twice-daily zidovudine/lamivudine and once-daily abacavir/lamivudine in treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection in the United States. A Markov model with four therapy lines and six health states based on CD4(+) cell-count ranges was developed to estimate lifetime costs and health outcomes. Efficacy data (virologic response and CD4(+) cell-count changes) for first-line therapy were from 144-week results of Study 934 comparing tenofovir/emtricitabine with zidovudine/lamivudine and 48-week results of Study CNA30024 comparing abacavir/lamivudine with zidovudine/lamivudine, all in combination with efavirenz. Data from Study CNA30024 for abacavir/lamivudine were adjusted to allow for an indirect comparison with tenofovir/emtricitabine. Subsequent therapy lines were based on likely baskets of antiretroviral therapy recommended by US treatment guidelines. Utility values, mortality rates, and costs (2009 US dollars) were obtained from published sources. Base-case results were tested in sensitivity and variability analyses. Average discounted results showed that individuals using tenofovir/emtricitabine were predicted to remain on first-line therapy for 7.7 years, accrue lifetime costs of $747,327, and experience 15.75 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), compared with 6.0 years, $777,090, and 15.68 QALYs for individuals using abacavir/lamivudine and 5.8 years, $778,287, and 15.44 QALYs for individuals using zidovudine/lamivudine. Tenofovir/emtricitabine was cost-effective compared with the other two first-line regimens in more than 75% of all probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulation runs for every willingness-to-pay threshold between $0 and $250,000 per QALY gained. Results were robust in variability and one-way sensitivity analyses. Tenofovir/emtricitabine was predicted to be more effective and cost-saving compared with abacavir/lamivudine and zidovudine/lamivudine in treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection in the United States.
    Value in Health 07/2011; 14(5):657-64. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.009 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A comprehensive study comparing the costs and efficacies of darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg qd and the other ritonavir-boosted (/r) protease inhibitors (PIs) recommended for treatment-naïve individuals with HIV-1 infection would help health care decision makers identify the value of each boosted PI. A cost-efficacy model was developed to compare the five recommended boosted PIs, each used with a tenofovir-based nucleotide/nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Efficacy was measured by virologic response (ie, HIV-1 ribonucleic acid < 50 copies/mL) at 48 weeks, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent clinical trials. One-year antiretroviral therapy costs and 48-week efficacy values were used to generate the efficiency frontier and cost-efficacy ratios. Darunavir/r was the most efficacious boosted PI, with an incremental cost-efficacy ratio of $27,390 per additional individual with virologic response, compared with fosamprenavir/r. All other regimens were dominated. Darunavir/r combination therapy also had one of the lowest average costs ($26,287) per individual with virologic response, resulting in a maximal number of individuals successfully treated within a fixed budget. The model results were robust in variability and sensitivity analyses. Darunavir/r 800/100 mg qd combination therapy represents a cost-efficacious option for treatment-naïve individuals with HIV-1 infection in the United States.
    HIV Clinical Trials 05/2010; 11(3):133-44. DOI:10.1310/hct1103-133 · 2.14 Impact Factor