ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2014
Lopinavir/r no longer recommended as a first-line regimen: a comparative effectiveness analysis.
Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe compared the effectiveness of tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) combined with either lopinavir/r (LPV/r) or another recommended third drug in the 2010 French guidelines in antiretroviral-naïve patients starting combination antiretroviral therapy in 2004-2008 in the French Hospital Database on HIV.
methodsThe outcomes were stop or switch of the third component, viral load (VL) <500 copies/ml, an increase of at least 100 CD4 cells/mm(3), AIDS-defining event and non-AIDS-defining hospitalization or death. Propensity scores were estimated by logistic regression based on the clinical centre and other confounders. In each clinical centre, each patient initiating LPV/r was matched with a patient initiating another third drug (efavirenz or atazanavir/r) and having a close propensity score. Cox's proportional hazards models were then used, with treatment as covariate. Time was right-censored at four years.
results1269 patients started LPV/r plus TDF/FTC, and 890 could be matched to 890 patients receiving another third drug. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between these two groups. LPV/r was associated with a higher risk of third drug stop (hazard ratio (HR): 1.69; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.42-2.00) and with less rapid viral suppression (HR: 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95). There was no difference in the time required for a CD4 cell increment of at least 100/mm(3), or to the occurrence of an AIDS-defining event. Non-AIDS-defining hospitalizations or deaths were more frequent with LPV/r (HR: 1.79; 95% CI, 1.33-2.39).
conclusionsFor first-line therapy, in this observational setting, TDF/FTC plus LPV/r were less durable than TDF/FTC plus another recommended third drug, led to a less rapid viral suppression and were associated with a higher risk of non-AIDS morbidity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.