International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Division of Tropical Heath and Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia.
BMC Infect Dis. 2018 Nov 14;18(1):564. doi: 10.1186/s12879-018-3506-x.
There are randomized trials assessing a variety of antiviral drugs for hepatitis B virus (HBV), but the relative effectiveness of these drugs in the treatment of patients co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) remains unclear. The objectives of the current study were to estimate and rank the relative effectiveness of antiviral drugs for treating HBV and HIV co-infected patients.
Randomized trials, assessing the efficacy of antiviral drugs for HBV and HIV co-infected patients were searched in health-related databases. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Main outcome in this meta-analysis study was the success of treatment by antivirals as determined by virologic response. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis of these trials and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
Seven randomized trials (329 participants) were included in this network meta-analysis study. A network geometry was formed with six treatment options including four antiviral drugs, adefovir (ADV), emtricitabine (FTC), lamivudine (LMV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), combination treatment of TDF plus LMV, and placebo. The weighted percentage contributions of each comparison distributed fairly equally in the entire network of evidence. An assumption of consistency required for network meta-analysis was not violated (the global Wald test for inconsistency: Chi(4) = 3.63, p = 0.46). The results of estimates showed no differences between the treatment regimens in terms of viral response for treating HBV and HIV co-infected patients, which spanned both benefit and harm (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.06-2.41). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low in all comparisons (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: 218 fewer per 1000,121 more to 602 fewer, very low certainty). Therefore, we remained uncertain to the true ranking of the antiviral treatments in HBV/ HIV co-infected patients.
The findings suggest that the evidence is insufficient to provide guidance to the relative effectiveness of currently available antiviral drugs with dual activity in treating co-infection of HBV/HIV. Well-designed, large clinical trials in this field to address other important outcomes from different epidemiological settings are recommended.
有一些随机试验评估了各种抗病毒药物治疗乙型肝炎病毒(HBV)的效果,但这些药物在治疗同时感染人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)的患者中的相对有效性尚不清楚。本研究的目的是评估和排名抗病毒药物治疗 HBV 和 HIV 合并感染患者的相对有效性。
在健康相关数据库中搜索评估抗病毒药物治疗 HBV 和 HIV 合并感染患者疗效的随机试验。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估纳入试验的方法学质量。本荟萃分析研究的主要结局是通过病毒学反应确定抗病毒治疗的成功。我们对这些试验进行了成对和网络荟萃分析,并使用 GRADE 方法评估证据质量。
本网络荟萃分析研究纳入了 7 项随机试验(329 名参与者)。形成了一个网络几何图形,包含 6 种治疗选择,包括 4 种抗病毒药物,阿德福韦酯(ADV)、恩曲他滨(FTC)、拉米夫定(LMV)和替诺福韦二吡呋酯(TDF),TDF 联合 LMV 治疗以及安慰剂。每个比较的加权百分比贡献在整个证据网络中分布相当均匀。网络荟萃分析所需的一致性假设未被违反(全局 Wald 检验不一致性:Chi(4) = 3.63,p = 0.46)。估计结果表明,治疗 HBV 和 HIV 合并感染患者的病毒反应方面,治疗方案之间没有差异,既没有获益也没有危害(例如,LMV 与 TDF 联合 LMV:OR:0.37,95%CI:0.06-2.41)。总体而言,所有比较的证据确定性都非常低(例如,LMV 与 TDF 联合 LMV:每 1000 例少 218 例,多 121 例至少 602 例,非常低确定性)。因此,我们仍然不确定在 HBV/HIV 合并感染患者中抗病毒治疗的真实排名。
研究结果表明,目前尚缺乏关于具有双重活性的现有抗病毒药物在治疗 HBV/HIV 合并感染方面相对有效性的证据,建议在这一领域开展设计良好、规模较大的临床试验,以解决来自不同流行病学环境的其他重要结局。