Siegfried Nandi, Uthman Olalekan A, Rutherford George W
South African Cochrane Centre, South African Medical Research Council, PO Box 19070, Tygerberg, South Africa, 7505.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Mar 17;2010(3):CD008272. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008272.pub2.
According to consensus, initiation of therapy is best based on CD4 cell count, a marker of immune status, rather than on viral load, a marker of virologic replication. For patients with advanced symptoms, treatment should be started regardless of CD4 count. However, the point during the course of HIV infection at which antiretroviral therapy (ART) is best initiated in asymptomatic patients remains unclear. Guidelines issued by various agencies provide different initiation recommendations according to resource availability. This can be confusing for clinicians and policy-makers when determining the best time to initiate therapy. Optimizing the initiation of ART is clearly complex and must, therefore, be balanced between individual and broader public health needs.
To assess the evidence for the optimal time to initiate ART in treatment-naive, asymptomatic, HIV-infected adults
We formulated a comprehensive and exhaustive search strategy in an attempt to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress). In August 2009, we searched the following electronic journal and trial databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We also searched the electronic conference database of NLM Gateway, individual conference proceedings and prospective trials registers. We contacted researchers and relevant organizations and checked reference lists of all included studies.
Randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of ART consisting of three drugs initiated early in the disease at high CD4 counts as defined by the trial. Early initiation could be at levels of 201-350, 351-500, or >500 cells/microL, with the comparison group initiating ART at CD4 counts below 200 x 10(6) cells/microL or as defined by the trial.
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and graded methodological quality. Data extraction and methodological quality were checked by a third author who resolved differences when these arose. Where clinically meaningful to do so, we meta-analysed dichotomous outcomes using the relative risk (RR) and report the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).
One completed trial (N = 816) and one sub-group (N = 249) of a larger trial met inclusion criteria. We combined the mortality data for both trials comparing initiating ART at CD4 levels at 350 cells/microL or between 200 and 350 cells/microL with deferring initiation of ART to CD4 levels of 250 cells/microL or 200 cells/microL. There was a statistically significant reduction in death when starting ART at higher CD4 counts. Risk of death was reduced by 74% (RR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.62; P = 0.002). Risk of tuberculosis was reduced by 50% in the groups starting ART early; this was not statistically significant, with the reduction as much as 74% or an increased risk of up to 12% (RR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.26, 1.12; P = 0.01). Starting ART at enrollment (when participants had CD4 counts of 350 cells/microL) rather than deferring to starting at a CD4 count of 250 cells/microL reduced the risk of disease progression by 70%; this was not statistically significant, with the reduction in risk as much as 97% or an increased risk of up to 185% (RR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.03, 2.85; P = 0.29).One RCT found no statistically significant difference in the number of independent Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in the early and standard ART groups when we conducted an intention-to-treat analysis (RR = 1.72; 95% CI: 0.98, 3.03; P = 0.06). However, when analyzing only participants who actually commenced ART in the deferred group (n = 160), the trial authors report a statistically significant increase in the incidence of zidovudine-related anaemia (8.1%) compared with those in the early initiation group (3.4%) (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.88; P = 0.02).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of moderate quality that initiating ART at CD4 levels higher than 200 or 250 cells/microL reduces mortality rates in asymptomatic, ART-naive, HIV-infected people. Practitioners and policy-makers may consider initiating ART at levels </= 350 cells/microL for patients who present to health services and are diagnosed with HIV early in the infection.
根据共识,治疗的启动最好基于免疫状态标志物CD4细胞计数,而非病毒复制标志物病毒载量。对于有严重症状的患者,无论CD4计数如何都应开始治疗。然而,在无症状患者的HIV感染过程中,抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)最佳启动时间仍不明确。各机构发布的指南根据资源可及性提供了不同的启动建议。这可能会使临床医生和政策制定者在确定最佳治疗启动时间时感到困惑。显然,优化ART启动很复杂,因此必须在个体需求和更广泛的公共卫生需求之间取得平衡。
评估初治、无症状、HIV感染成人中启动ART的最佳时间的证据
我们制定了全面详尽的检索策略,试图识别所有相关研究,无论其语言或发表状态(已发表、未发表、即将发表和正在进行)。2009年8月,我们检索了以下电子期刊和试验数据库:MEDLINE、EMBASE和CENTRAL。我们还检索了NLM Gateway的电子会议数据库、个别会议论文集和前瞻性试验注册库。我们联系了研究人员和相关组织,并查阅了所有纳入研究的参考文献列表。
随机对照试验,比较在疾病早期高CD4计数(根据试验定义)时开始的由三种药物组成的ART的效果。早期启动可以在201 - 350、351 - 500或>500个细胞/微升水平,对照组在CD4计数低于200×10⁶个细胞/微升或根据试验定义的水平开始ART。
两位综述作者独立评估研究的合格性、提取数据并对方法学质量进行分级。数据提取和方法学质量由第三位作者检查,出现分歧时由其解决。在临床意义允许的情况下,我们使用相对风险(RR)对二分类结局进行荟萃分析,并报告95%置信区间(95%CI)。
一项完成的试验(N = 816)和一项更大试验的一个亚组(N = 249)符合纳入标准。我们合并了两项试验的死亡率数据,比较在CD4水平为350个细胞/微升或200至350个细胞/微升时开始ART与将ART启动推迟到CD4水平为250个细胞/微升或200个细胞/微升的情况。在较高CD4计数时开始ART,死亡有统计学显著降低。死亡风险降低了74%(RR = 0.26;95%CI:0.11,0.62;P = 0.002)。早期开始ART的组中结核病风险降低了50%;这无统计学显著性,降低幅度可达74%或风险增加高达12%(RR = 0.54;95%CI:0.26,1.12;P = 0.01)。在入组时(参与者CD4计数为350个细胞/微升)开始ART而非推迟到CD4计数为250个细胞/微升时开始,疾病进展风险降低了70%;这无统计学显著性,风险降低幅度可达97%或风险增加高达185%(RR = 0.30;95%CI:0.03,2.85;P = 0.29)。一项随机对照试验发现,当我们进行意向性分析时,早期和标准ART组中发生的3级或4级独立不良事件数量无统计学显著差异(RR = 1.72;95%CI:0.98,3.03;P = 0.06)。然而,仅分析延迟组中实际开始ART的参与者(n = 160)时,试验作者报告与早期启动组(3.4%)相比,齐多夫定相关贫血的发生率有统计学显著增加(8.1%)(RR = 0.42;95%CI:0.20,0.88;P = 0.02)。
有中等质量的证据表明,在CD4水平高于200或250个细胞/微升时开始ART可降低无症状、初治、HIV感染人群的死亡率。对于向卫生服务机构就诊且在感染早期被诊断为HIV的患者,从业者和政策制定者可考虑在CD4水平≤350个细胞/微升时开始ART。