120
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Lower Pill Burden and Once-Daily Antiretroviral Treatment Regimens for HIV Infection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Once-daily compared with twice-daily antiretroviral therapy regimens increased adherence; however, the difference was modest and not associated with a difference in virological suppression. In addition, higher pill burden was associated with lower rates of virological suppression, whether once- or twice-daily regimens.

          Abstract

          Background.  Contemporary antiretroviral treatment regimens are simpler than in the past, with lower pill burden and once-daily dosing frequency common. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the impact of pill burden and once-daily vs twice-daily dosing on ART adherence and virological outcomes.

          Methods.  A literature search of 4 electronic databases through 31 March 2013 was used. RCTs comparing once-daily vs twice-daily ART regimens that also reported on adherence and virological suppression were included. Study design, study population characteristics, intervention, outcome measures, and study quality were extracted. Study quality was rated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

          Results.  Nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria (N = 6312 adult patients). Higher pill burden was associated with both lower adherence rates ( P = .004) and worse virological suppression ( P < .0001) in both once-daily and twice-daily subgroups, although the association with adherence in the once-daily subgroup was not statistically significant. The average adherence was modestly higher in once-daily regimens than twice-daily regimens (weighted mean difference = 2.55%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 3.87; P = .0002). Patients on once-daily regimens did not achieve virological suppression more frequently than patients on twice-daily regimens (relative risk [RR] = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.03; P = .50). Both adherence and viral load suppression decreased over time, but adherence decreased less with once-daily dosing than with twice-daily dosing.

          Conclusions.  Lower pill burden was associated with both better adherence and virological suppression. Adherence, but not virological suppression, was slightly better with once- vs twice-daily regimens.

          Related collections

          Most cited references106

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

              The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Infect Dis
                Clin. Infect. Dis
                cid
                cid
                Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
                Oxford University Press
                1058-4838
                1537-6591
                1 May 2014
                22 January 2014
                22 January 2014
                : 58
                : 9
                : 1297-1307
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology, Pittsburgh University Graduate School of Public Health , Pennsylvania
                [2 ]Departments of Epidemiology and International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , Baltimore, Maryland
                [3 ]Department of Medicine,
                [4 ]Centre for Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University , Cape Town, South Africa
                [5 ]Department of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, Côte de Nacre University, Côte de Nacre Teaching Hospital
                [6 ]Faculté de Médecine, Université de Caen Basse-Normandie, EA 4655 Risque Microbien , Caen, France
                [7 ]Division of Health Sciences, Warwick-Centre for Applied Health Research and Delivery (WCARHD), Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick , Coventry
                [8 ]Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, International Health Group , United Kingdom
                [9 ]Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University , Cape Town, South Africa
                [10 ]Perelman School of Medicine, and Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University of Pennsylvania
                [11 ]Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts
                [12 ]Southwest CARE Center , Santa Fe, New Mexico
                [13 ]University of Alabama at Birmingham
                [14 ]Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa , Ontario, Canada
                [15 ]Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, and The Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center , Houston, Texas
                Author notes
                [a]

                J. B. N. and J.-J. P. contributed equally to this work.

                Preliminary results of this work were accepted for presentation at the XIX International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2012), held in Washington, DC, 22–27 July 2012. Abstract#18392 (http://www.aids2012.org/) as well as at the 14th European AIDS Clinical Society Conference held in Brussels, Belgium, 16–19 October 2013. Abstract# PS 4/5 ( http://www.eacs-conference2013.com/index.php?id=40).

                Correspondence: Jean B. Nachega, MD, PhD, MPH, Associate Professor of Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Microbiology and Epidemiology, Pittsburgh University Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Infectious Diseases Epidemiology Program, 130 DeSoto Street, 503 Parran Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 ( jbn16@ 123456pitt.edu ).
                Article
                ciu046
                10.1093/cid/ciu046
                3982838
                24457345
                761e14a8-79e3-4b21-9a41-33f4f6b9443c
                © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 October 2013
                : 14 January 2014
                Categories
                HIV/AIDS

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                randomized controlled trials,art,fixed-dose combination,once-daily,twice-daily

                Comments

                Comment on this article