Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24983542›Full record

Trial reportAIDS (London, England)2014

Efficacy and safety of maraviroc vs. efavirenz in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1: 5-year findings.

David A Cooper, Jayvant Heera, Prudence Ive, Mariette Botes, Edwin Dejesus, Robert Burnside, Nathan Clumeck, Sharon Walmsley, Adriano Lazzarin, Geoffrey Mukwaya and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in AIDS (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The human tissue-resident CCR5Science translational medicine · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. CCR5 Inhibitors and HIV-1 Infection.Journal of AIDS and HIV treatment · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Maraviroc: a review of its use in HIV infection and beyond.Drug design, development and therapy · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 9 institutions in 7 countries.

David A CooperaKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia bPfizer Inc, Groton, Connecticut, USA cUniversity of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg dPrivate Practice, Pretoria, South Africa eOrlando Immunology Center, Orlando, Florida, USA fSaint-Pierre University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium gUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Canada hSan Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy iPfizer Inc, New York jUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA kPfizer Global Research and Development, Sandwich, UK.
Jayvant Heera
Prudence Ive
Mariette Botes
Edwin Dejesus
Robert Burnside
Nathan Clumeck
Sharon Walmsley
Adriano Lazzarin
Geoffrey Mukwaya
Michael Saag
Elna van Der Ryst
Pfizer (United States) · USCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Pierre · BEIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele · ITIS practice · BEOrlando Immunology Center · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZAUniversity of Toronto · CAUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMaraviroc, a chemokine co-receptor type 5 (CCR5) antagonist, has demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to efavirenz, each in combination with zidovudine/lamivudine, over 96 weeks in the Maraviroc vs. Efavirenz Regimens as Initial Therapy (MERIT) study. Here we report 5-year findings.

designA randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase IIb/III study with an open-label extension phase.

methodsTreatment-naive patients with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 infection (Trofile) received maraviroc 300 mg twice daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily, and zidovudine/lamivudine 300 mg/150 mg twice daily. After the last patient's week 96 visit, the study was unblinded and patients could enter a nominal 3-year open-label phase. Endpoints at the 5-year nominal visit (week 240) included proportion of patients (CCR5 tropism re-confirmed by enhanced sensitivity Trofile) with viral load (plasma HIV-1 RNA) below 50 and 400 copies/ml, and change from baseline in CD4(+) cell count, as well as safety.

resultsThe proportion of patients maintaining viral load below 50 copies/ml was similar between treatment arms throughout the study and at week 240 (maraviroc 50.8% vs. efavirenz 45.9%). Maraviroc-treated patients had a greater increase from baseline in mean CD4(+) cell count than efavirenz-treated patients at week 240 (293 vs. 271 cells/μl, respectively). Fewer patients on maraviroc vs. efavirenz experienced treatment-related adverse events (68.9 vs. 81.7%) and discontinued as a result of any adverse event (10.6 vs. 21.3%).

conclusionMaraviroc maintained similar long-term antiviral efficacy to efavirenz over 5 years in treatment-naive patients with CCR5-tropic HIV-1. Maraviroc was generally well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings or evidence of long-term safety concerns.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAlkynesAnti-HIV AgentsAntiretroviral Therapy, Highly ActiveBenzoxazinesCD4 Lymphocyte CountCyclohexanesCyclopropanesDouble-Blind MethodDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHIV-1HIV InfectionsHumansAlkynesAnti-HIV AgentsBenzoxazinesCyclohexanesCyclopropanesefavirenzMaravirocTriazoles

Identifiers

PMID24983542
PMCPMC3940293
OpenAlexW1984714210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.