SynthesisAdvances in therapy2026
Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of INSTI-Based Antiretroviral Therapy Single- Versus Multiple-Tablet Regimens for the Treatment of HIV.
Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2026. 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.
- Narrative Review of Two-Drug Regimens in Modern HIV Care: Driving Innovation, Flexibility, and Quality of Life.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
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
introductionAntiretroviral single-tablet regimens (STRs) have several advantages over multiple-tablet regimens (MTRs), including increased adherence and improved treatment satisfaction for people with HIV (PWH). This analysis has systematically reviewed and compared STRs and MTRs in adult PWH receiving integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-based regimens.
methodsMEDLINE and Embase databases were searched on November 28, 2023, to identify studies published from 2013 to 2023 that evaluated INSTI-based STRs compared with ≥ 1 INSTI-based MTRs. Study quality was assessed based on the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines. Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted to provide pooled relative estimates for key clinical outcomes.
resultsTwenty-five publications were included in the quantitative syntheses. STRs were associated with improved adherence based on 3 retrospective studies [rate ratio (RR) = 1.64 (95% confidence interval: 1.46-1.83)] but there was no difference in adherence in the 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) that assessed adherence [RR = 1.02 (0.77-1.35)], though, due to blinding, both STR and MTR groups took multiple pills. STRs were associated with higher persistence than MTRs based on 7 retrospective studies [RR = 1.33 (1.17-1.52)]. PWH treated with MTRs versus STRs were more likely to discontinue therapy in retrospective studies [hazard ratio = 1.62 (1.52-1.72), 6 studies] and prospective cohort studies [RR = 4.43 (1.62-12.09), 3 studies], but not within RCTs where there was no difference in discontinuation [RR = 0.83 (0.55-1.26), 4 trials]. Risk of virologic failure was comparable between STRs and MTRs in RCTs [RR = 1.00 (0.35-2.84), 5 trials] and retrospective studies [odds ratio = 1.30 (0.30-5.53), 5 studies].
conclusionINSTI-based STRs were associated with improved adherence and persistence, and lower discontinuation rates compared with INSTI-based MTRs in observational, real-world studies, whereas no differences in adherence or discontinuation were seen in RCTs. Neither RCTs nor real-world studies showed any difference in virologic failure for STRs and MTRs. STRs are a potential tool for supporting adherence and persistence in real-world settings. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42024525515.
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.