Observational studyPloS one2018
No difference in effectiveness of treatment simplification to boosted or unboosted atazanavir plus lamivudine in virologically suppressed in HIV-1-infected patients.
Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimplification strategies of antiretroviral treatment represent effective tools for the reduction of drug-induced toxicity, resistance mutations in case of virological failure and costs.
objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir (ATVrtv) or unboosted atazanavir (ATV400) plus lamivudine, and if low plasma or intracellular ATV Ctrough influence virological outcomes.
methodsAmbispective observational study in patients with undetectable HIV-RNA who were switched to ATVrtv or ATV400 plus lamivudine once daily. Previous virological failures (VF) were allowed if the resistance tests showed major resistance mutation neither to ATV nor to lamivudine. VF was defined as two consecutive plasma HIV-RNA >200 copies/mL. Effectiveness was assessed by intention-to-treat and on-treatment analyses. Plasma and intracellular ATV Ctrough were measured by LC-MS/MS.
resultA total of 246 patients were included. At week 48, the Kaplan-Meier estimation of efficacy within the ATVrtv and ATV400 groups were 85.9% [95% confidence interval, (CI95), 80.3-91.4%] versus 87.6% (CI95, 80.1-94.1%) by intention-to-treat analysis (p = 0.684), and 97.7% (CI95, 95.2-100%) versus 98.8% (CI95, 97.0-100%) by on-treatment analysis (p = 0.546), respectively. Plasma and intracellular Ctrough were significantly higher with ATVrtv than with ATV400 (geometric mean (GM), 318.3 vs. 605.9 ng/mL; p = 0.013) and (811.3 vs. 2659.2 ng/mL; p = 0.001), respectively. Only 14 patients had plasma Ctrough below the suggested effective concentration for ATV (150 ng/mL). No relationship between plasma or intracellular Ctrough and VF or blips were found.
conclusionBoosted or unboosted ATV plus lamivudine is effective and safe, and the lower plasma Ctrough observed with ATV400 do not compromise the effectiveness of these simplification regimens in long-term virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected patients.
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.