Suppr超能文献

非核苷类逆转录酶抑制剂与利托那韦增强型蛋白酶抑制剂为基础的方案用于初始治疗HIV感染的随机试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

Nonnucleoside Reverse-transcriptase Inhibitor- vs Ritonavir-boosted Protease Inhibitor-based Regimens for Initial Treatment of HIV Infection: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Randomized Trials.

作者信息

Borges Álvaro H, Lundh Andreas, Tendal Britta, Bartlett John A, Clumeck Nathan, Costagliola Dominique, Daar Eric S, Echeverría Patrícia, Gisslén Magnus, Huedo-Medina Tania B, Hughes Michael D, Huppler Hullsiek Katherine, Khabo Paul, Komati Stephanus, Kumar Princy, Lockman Shahin, MacArthur Rodger D, Maggiolo Franco, Matteelli Alberto, Miro Jose M, Oka Shinichi, Petoumenos Kathy, Puls Rebekah L, Riddler Sharon A, Sax Paul E, Sierra-Madero Juan, Torti Carlo, Lundgren Jens D

机构信息

Centre for Health & Infectious Diseases Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen.

Department of Internal Medicine, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet.

出版信息

Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Jul 15;63(2):268-80. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw236. Epub 2016 Apr 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest that nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) cause faster virologic suppression, while ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) recover more CD4 cells. However, individual trials have not been powered to compare clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We searched databases to identify randomized trials that compared NNRTI- vs PI/r-based initial therapy. A metaanalysis calculated risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs), as appropriate. Primary outcome was death or progression to AIDS. Secondary outcomes were death, progression to AIDS, and treatment discontinuation. We calculated RR of virologic suppression and MD for an increase in CD4 cells at week 48.

RESULTS

We included 29 trials with 9047 participants. Death or progression to AIDS occurred in 226 participants in the NNRTI arm and in 221 in the PI/r arm (RR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, .87-1.22; 12 trials; n = 3825), death in 205 participants in the NNRTI arm vs 198 in the PI/r arm (1.04; 0.86-1.25; 22 trials; n = 8311), and progression to AIDS in 140 participants in the NNRTI arm vs 144 in the PI/r arm (1.00; 0.80-1.25; 13 trials; n = 4740). Overall treatment discontinuation (1.12; 0.93-1.35; 24 trials; n = 8249) and from toxicity (1.21; 0.87-1.68; 21 trials; n = 6195) were comparable, but discontinuation due to virologic failure was more common with NNRTI (1.58; 0.91-2.74; 17 trials; n = 5371). At week 48, there was no difference between NNRTI and PI/r in virologic suppression (RR, 1.03; 0.98-1.09) or CD4(+) recovery (MD, -4.7 cells; -14.2 to 4.8).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference in clinical and viro-immunologic outcomes between NNRTI- and PI/r-based therapy.

摘要

背景

既往研究表明,非核苷类逆转录酶抑制剂(NNRTIs)可使病毒学抑制速度更快,而利托那韦增强的蛋白酶抑制剂(PI/r)可使更多CD4细胞恢复。然而,个别试验尚无足够的效力来比较临床结局。

方法

我们检索数据库以识别比较基于NNRTI与基于PI/r的初始治疗的随机试验。根据情况进行荟萃分析计算风险比(RRs)或均值差(MDs)。主要结局为死亡或进展至艾滋病。次要结局为死亡、进展至艾滋病及治疗中断。我们计算了第48周时病毒学抑制的RR及CD4细胞增加的MD。

结果

我们纳入了29项试验,共9047名参与者。NNRTI组有226名参与者发生死亡或进展至艾滋病,PI/r组有221名(RR,1.03;95%置信区间,0.87 - 1.22;12项试验;n = 3825);NNRTI组有205名参与者死亡,PI/r组有198名(1.04;0.86 - 1.25;22项试验;n = 8311);NNRTI组有140名参与者进展至艾滋病,PI/r组有144名(1.00;0.80 - 1.25;13项试验;n = 4740)。总体治疗中断情况(1.12;0.93 - 1.35;24项试验;n = 8249)及因毒性导致的治疗中断情况(1.21;0.87 - 1.68;21项试验;n = 6195)具有可比性,但因病毒学失败导致的治疗中断在NNRTI组更常见(1.58;0.91 - 2.74;17项试验;n = 5371)。在第48周时,NNRTI与PI/r在病毒学抑制(RR,1.03;0.98 - 1.09)或CD4(+)细胞恢复(MD,-4.7个细胞;-14.2至4.8)方面无差异。

结论

我们发现基于NNRTI与基于PI/r的治疗在临床及病毒 - 免疫结局方面无差异。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验