ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Mortality using raltegravir versus other integrase strand-transfer inhibitors in people with HIV in Europe and Australia: a prospective multicentre study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. 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.
- Switching to Integrase Inhibitors and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Treatment-Experienced People With HIV: A Sequential Target Trial Emulation in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Integrase strand-transfer inhibitors (INSTI) are a key part of contemporary antiretroviral therapy (ART). Raltegravir (RAL) was the first INSTI and remains recommended for some people with HIV. We investigated all-cause mortality between RAL-based ART and other INSTIs in the RESPOND cohort consortium among both ART-naïve and treatment experienced individuals. Methods: RESPOND, a multicenter prospective cohort study, includes approximately 40,000 adults (≥18 years) with HIV from 17 cohorts across Europe and Australia. Individuals eligible for inclusion into RESPOND had ≥1 clinical visit at a site participating in RESPOND after January 01, 2012, and a CD4 count and HIV viral load measurement available at inclusion. Participants in RESPOND who started their first INSTI between JAN 01, 2012 and DEC 31, 2021 were included. All-cause mortality among those starting RAL was compared to those starting any other INSTI using Cox proportional hazards regressions: one model adjusting for age and another weighted by inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW). Predictors of starting RAL were estimated by logistic regression. Findings: Among 20,349 participants starting an INSTI (15,429 (75.8%) male, 4879 (24.0%) female, and 41 (0.2%) transgender), 938 (4.6%) died during 94,677 person-years of follow-up (PYFU). Crude mortality rates (MR) were higher for participants starting RAL (MR 12.9 per 1000 PYFU; 95% CI 11.5-14.5) than other INSTIs (MR 9.1 per 1000 PYFU; 95% CI 8.4, 9.8). Starting RAL was significantly associated with higher mortality when controlling for age (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.43; 95% CI 1.25, 1.65). However, after applying IPTW, there was insufficient evidence for a difference in mortality in the full cohort (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13; 95% CI 0.93, 1.34) or among ART-naïve participants (HR 1.23; 95% CI 0.71, 2.12). Starting RAL was associated with higher HIV viral load, hepatitis C positive status (aOR 2.07; 95% CI 1.82, 2.37), prevalent end-stage renal disease (aOR 2.58; 95% CI 1.58, 4.19), chemotherapy near baseline (aOR 1.58; 1.01, 2.48), and cardiovascular disease (aOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.30, 1.91). Interpretation: In this large and well-characterised cohort we found no evidence of an association between all-cause mortality and use of RAL compared to other INSTIs after accounting for confounding at the time of starting the INSTI. Our findings suggest that prior reports of such an association could have been confounded by indication and channelling bias. While a large number of potential confounders were accounted for, the results presented are an estimation of average treatment effect using IPTW which is still vulnerable to uncontrolled confounding. Funding: CHU St Pierre Brussels HIV Cohort, Austrian HIV Cohort Study, Australian HIV Observational Database, AIDS Therapy Evaluation in the Netherlands National Observational HIV cohort, EuroSIDA cohort, Frankfurt HIV Cohort Study, Georgian National AIDS Health Information System, Nice HIV Cohort, ICONA Foundation, Modena HIV Cohort, PISCIS Cohort Study, Swiss HIV Cohort Study, Swedish InfCare HIV Cohort, Royal Free HIV Cohort Study, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, University Hospital Bonn HIV Cohort, University of Cologne HIV Cohort, Brighton HIV Cohort, and the National Croatian HIV cohort, ViiV Healthcare, Merck Life Sciences, Gilead Sciences, and the Centre of Excellence for Health, Immunity Infections (CHIP).
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.