Advertisement

 

 

Switching to Raltegravir From a Virologically Effective Boosted Protease Inhibitor Regimen: A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis From the French Hospital Database on HIV (FHDH-ANRS CO4).

Switching to Raltegravir From a Virologically Effective Boosted Protease Inhibitor Regimen: A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis From the French Hospital Database on HIV (FHDH-ANRS CO4).
Author Information (click to view)

Potard V, Simon A, Lacombe JM, Parienti JJ, Costagliola D, ,


Potard V, Simon A, Lacombe JM, Parienti JJ, Costagliola D, , (click to view)

Potard V, Simon A, Lacombe JM, Parienti JJ, Costagliola D, ,

Advertisement
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016 8 19() pii

Abstract
BACKGROUND
 In individuals with viral load (VL) suppression on a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) regimen, a switch to raltegravir (RAL) can be an option in case of comorbidities, but the SWITCHMRK trials challenged this strategy. Here, among individuals with VL suppression on a boosted PI, we compared outcomes between those who continued on the same regimen and those who switched to RAL.

METHODS
 In this cohort study from the French Hospital Database on HIV, each individual who switched to RAL was matched with up to 3 individuals who continued PI, were being followed up during the calendar period of the switch, and had the same duration of VL suppression (both ±6 months). The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of hospitalization, or AIDS event or death, and secondary endpoints the immunovirologic responses. To control for measured confounders, the inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to estimate hazards ratios between the 2 groups.

RESULTS
 We matched 282 RAL switchers with 838 nonswitchers. Although several variables differed significantly between the groups, including a higher prevalence of comorbidities in the RAL group, the IPTW method yielded standardized differences <10% for all variables. After IPTW, there was no difference in the risk of hospitalization or AIDS event or death between the 2 groups (13.6% and 10.5%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% confidence interval, .74-1.83]) and no difference in the likelihood of virologic failure or CD4 cell gain. CONCLUSIONS
 In individuals with controlled VL on a boosted PI regimen who switched to RAL, none of the endpoints differed with nonswitchers after IPTW.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

18 − four =

[ HIDE/SHOW ]