1 / 29

Efficacy of initial combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV-1: a meta-analysis

Efficacy of initial combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV-1: a meta-analysis. Frederick J. Lee 1 , Janaki Amin 2 , Andrew Carr 1 Centre for Applied Medical Research, St Vincent ’ s Hospital 1 Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales 2 Sydney, Australia

Download Presentation

Efficacy of initial combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV-1: a meta-analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Efficacy of initial combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV-1:a meta-analysis Frederick J. Lee1, Janaki Amin2, Andrew Carr1 Centre for Applied Medical Research, St Vincent’s Hospital 1 Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales 2 Sydney, Australia 7th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment & Infection July 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

  2. Background Overview • Initial antiretroviral therapy (ART) • ‘backbone’ (2 NRTIs) + third drug (NNRTI / rPI / INSTI) • DHHS guidelines: when to start • mostly driven by CD4 count / clinical stage • HIV viral load not a criterion since 2007 • DHHS guidelines: what to start • ‘Preferred’ &‘Alternative’ regimens • current ‘Preferred’ regimens: • TDF-FTC/3TC + EFV / rDRV / rAZV / RAL

  3. Background Overview • Guidelines based on serial assessment of individual trials • Systematic review / meta-analysis • more patients / regimens, so more power to • evaluate subpopulations • identify predictors of ART success • Limitations of previous ART meta-analyses • only some regimens • short follow-up durations • more recent studies: • new drugs / studies • longer follow-up

  4. Objectives Primary and secondary • Primary = overall efficacy • determined by undetectable viral load • all studies over maximum follow-up period • Secondary • efficacy over time • 48, 96, & 144 weeks • efficacy by 2012 DHHS guidelines • ‘Preferred’ vs. ‘Alternative’ ART • efficacy by baseline viral load • ≥100,000 vs. <100,000 copies/mL • predictors of efficacy and of failure

  5. Methods Study selection • Inclusion criteria • treatment-naïve, HIV-1+ adults • prospective design • ≥48 weeks duration • intent-to-treat (ITT) efficacy analysis • Exclusion criteria • retrospective or cross-sectional design • combinations not recommended for toxicity/poor efficacy (e.g. monotherapy) • directly observed therapy

  6. Methods Data sources • Databases sourced (to Dec 31, 2012) • MEDLINE • clinical trial registries (Cochrane, NIH, ISRCT) • conference abstracts & presentations (CROI, IAS, ICAAC, Glasgow) • product labels & medical reviews (FDA, EMA) • study synopses from manufacturers • Manufacturers approached for missing data, kindly provided by: • BMS, Gilead, MSD, ViiV Healthcare

  7. Methods Data collection • Database construction • study characteristics • eligibility criteria • participant & disease characteristics • ART characteristics

  8. Methods Statistics • Descriptive • unit of analysis = treatment group • variables expressed as • percentage • mean, weighted for group size • Predictive • linear regression approach • multivariable • backwards, step-wise variable selection • Analyses performed using STATA (v.11) • parameters not displayed if not significant or not of particular interest

  9. Study characteristics

  10. Study characteristics

  11. Participant characteristics

  12. ART characteristics Dosing

  13. ART characteristics Key NRTI backbones & third drug classes

  14. Efficacy All studies

  15. Efficacy All studies

  16. Efficacy: all studies from 1994 to 2010

  17. Efficacy Predictors (all studies): NRTI backbone r2,NRTI backbone type = 35.3%

  18. Efficacy Predictors (all studies): third drug class r2, third drug class = 43.0%

  19. Efficacy Predictors (all studies): study design

  20. Efficacy By pre-treatment viral load Mean difference for <100,000 vs. ≥100,000 subgroups = 8.4% (95% CI 6.0 to 10.9), p<0.001

  21. Efficacy Predictors (all studies): viral load ≥100,000

  22. Efficacy By DHHS regimen Mean difference for ‘Preferred’ vs. ‘Alternative’ regimens = 10% (95% CI 7.6 to 15.4), p<0.001

  23. Efficacy By DHHS regimen

  24. Efficacy By DHHS regimen Similar efficacy across DHHS-’Preferred’ regimens, although trend to superior efficacy with raltegravir

  25. Participant decision (11%) Cessation less likely in industry-sponsored studies Adverse events (8%) Cessation less likely in industry-sponsored and phase 2 studies Cessation: all studies, 1994 to 2010 (overall cessation 25%)

  26. Conclusions • Overall mean efficacy of initial ART is low • only 60% over 82 weeks • higher with ‘Preferred’ regimens (75% over 99 weeks) • Treatment determinants of greater success • TDF-FTC (vs. ABC-3TC) • INSTI (vs. NNRTI or boosted PI) - including when pre-treatment viral load ≥100,000 cp/mL • Suboptimal efficacy • most patients will interrupt initial ART • TDF-FTC + INSTI efficacy 81% when pre-treatment viral load ≥100,000 cp/mL • need for study of 3 vs. 4 drugs?

  27. Conclusions • Ongoing loss in efficacy over time • participant decision > adverse events >> virological failure • Significant 8.4% difference in efficacy between higher & lower viral load groups • similar to 10% difference between ‘Preferred’ & ‘Alternative’ DHHS regimens • guidelines should recommend initiating ART before viral load reaches 100,000 cp/mL • Despite focus on co-formulation, fewer daily pills & doses not independent predictors of overall efficacy

  28. Limitations • Groups the base unit, not individuals • Only some unpublished data available, mostly from industry-sponsored studies • Efficacy by viral load not randomised • No analysis of: • individual drugs within third drug class e.g. NVP vs. EFV; rLPV vs. other PI • clinical outcomes or resistance • Multivariable method of analysis • clinically irrelevant associations may emerge, relevant associations missed • dependent upon data completeness

  29. Acknowledgements • Data: Fraser Drummond (ViiV) Silke Schweizer (BMS) Carolee Welebob (MSD) Howard Wraight (Gilead) Rebekah Puls, Kathy Petoumenos (UNSW) • Funding: NHMRC of Australia (FJL) • Potential conflicts of interest (AC) • research funding - Baxter, Gilead, MSD, Pfizer • consultancies - Gilead, MSD, ViiV • lectures - Gilead, MSD, Serono, ViiV • advisory boards - Gilead, MSD, ViiV

More Related