Impact of etravirine on hospitalization rate between 2005 and 2011 among heavily treated HIV-1-infected individuals on failing regimens.

BACKGROUND: Etravirine (ETR), a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) available in France since 2006, is indicated for antiretroviral-experienced HIV-infected adults, in combination with a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI). To assess its clinical impact in routine care, we compared hospitalization rates according to ETR + PI prescription or not, among heavily treated HIV-1 infected individuals on failing regimens between 2005 and 2011. METHODS: From the French Hospital Database on HIV (ANRS CO4), we selected heavily treated individuals (prior exposure to at least 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI), 2PI and 1 NNRTI) with viral load (VL) > 50 copies/mL who started a new antiretroviral (ARV) regimen between 2005 and 2011. Using an intention-to-continue-treatment approach, hospitalization rates were calculated for the individuals who received ETR + PI, during the months after initiating ETR + PI (ETR + PI) or for the individuals who received ETR + PI, in the months before ETR + PI initiation and for the individuals who never received ETR + PI (no ETR + PI). hospitalization from an AIDS-defining cause and hospitalization from a non-AIDS defining cause rates were also calculated. Poisson regression models were used to compare the incidences between the two groups, with adjustment for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 3884 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 838 (21.6%) received ETR + PI. During 13,986 person-years (P-Y) of follow-up, there were 2484 hospitalizations in 956 individuals. The hospitalization rates per 1000 P-Y were 169.0 among individuals exposed to ETR + PI and 179.3 among those not exposed to ETR + PI. After adjustment, the respective hospitalization rates were 148.8 and 186.7 per 1000 P-Y, with an estimated relative risk of 0.80 (95%CI: 0.71-0.90), AIDS hospitalization rates were 11.5 and 22.7 per 1000 P-Y, with an estimated relative risk of 0.51(95%CI: 0.39-0.66) and non-AIDS hospitalization rates were 139.5 and 152.2 per 1000 P-Y, with an estimated relative risk of 0.92 (95%CI: 0.80-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2005 and 2011, access to ETR + PI was associated with a 20% reduction in the hospitalization rate among heavily treated HIV-1-infected individuals. This reduction was mainly due to a reduction in the AIDS hospitalization rate.

Switching to Raltegravir From a Virologically Effective Boosted Protease Inhibitor Regimen: A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis From the French Hospital Database on HIV (FHDH-ANRS CO4).

BACKGROUND: In individuals with viral load (VL) suppression on a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) regimen, a switch to raltegravir (RAL) can be an option in case of comorbidities, but the SWITCHMRK trials challenged this strategy. Here, among individuals with VL suppression on a boosted PI, we compared outcomes between those who continued on the same regimen and those who switched to RAL. METHODS: In this cohort study from the French Hospital Database on HIV, each individual who switched to RAL was matched with up to 3 individuals who continued PI, were being followed up during the calendar period of the switch, and had the same duration of VL suppression (both ±6 months). The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of hospitalization, or AIDS event or death, and secondary endpoints the immunovirologic responses. To control for measured confounders, the inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to estimate hazards ratios between the 2 groups. RESULTS: We matched 282 RAL switchers with 838 nonswitchers. Although several variables differed significantly between the groups, including a higher prevalence of comorbidities in the RAL group, the IPTW method yielded standardized differences <10% for all variables. After IPTW, there was no difference in the risk of hospitalization or AIDS event or death between the 2 groups (13.6% and 10.5%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% confidence interval, .74-1.83]) and no difference in the likelihood of virologic failure or CD4 cell gain. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with controlled VL on a boosted PI regimen who switched to RAL, none of the endpoints differed with nonswitchers after IPTW.

Comparative effectiveness of tenofovir in HIV-infected treatment-experienced patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens for HIV infection are frequently changed. We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials (RCTs) on the benefits and harms of switching to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based regimens in ART-experienced patients. METHODS: We included RCTs in HIV-infected adults comparing switching to a TDF-containing regimen with maintaining or switching to another regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, SCI, and the WHO Global Health Library. We assessed bias with the Cochrane tool and synthesized data using random-effects meta-analyses and Peto's approach. For further analyses, we added data from a previous systematic review in treatment-naïve patients. RESULTS: 17 RCTs with 2210 patients were included. All but one study had a high risk of bias. There was no significant association of switching to TDF-based regimens with mortality, fractures, CD4-cell count, body fat, virological failure, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol. TDF-based regimens decreased total cholesterol (mean difference -12.05 mg/dL; 95% CI -20.76 to -3.34), trigylcerides (-14.33 mg/dL; -23.73 to -4.93), and bone mineral density (BMD; hip: -2.46%; -3.9 to -1.03; lumbar spine -1.52%; -2.69 to -0.34). Effects on estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) were inconsistent and depended on the measurement. Adding 22 RCTs from 8297 treatment-naïve patients gave consistent results with then significant reductions of LDL (-7.57 mg/dL; -10.37 to -4.78), HDL (-2.38 mg/dL; -3.83 to -0.93), and eGFR (-3.49 ml/min; -5.56 to -1.43). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to TDF-based regimens is associated with reductions of BMD and lipid levels and possibly lowered kidney function. The evidence is limited by the high risk of bias.