Efavirenz versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: A prospective study of HIV-positive individuals

OBJECTIVE: To compare regimens consisting of either ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or efavirenz and a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone with respect to clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals in Europe and the United States included in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration. METHODS: HIV-positive, antiretroviral therapy-naive, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)-free individuals were followed from the time they started an atazanavir or efavirenz regimen. We estimated an analog of the "intention-to-treat" effect for efavirenz versus atazanavir regimens on clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes with adjustment via inverse probability weighting for time-varying covariates. RESULTS: A total of 4301 individuals started an atazanavir regimen (83 deaths, 157 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths) and 18,786 individuals started an efavirenz regimen (389 deaths, 825 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths). During a median follow-up of 31 months, the hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 0.98 (0.77, 1.24) for death and 1.09 (0.91, 1.30) for AIDS-defining illness or death comparing efavirenz with atazanavir regimens. The 5-year survival difference was 0.1% (95% confidence interval: -0.7%, 0.8%) and the AIDS-free survival difference was -0.3% (-1.2%, 0.6%). After 12 months, the mean change in CD4 cell count was 20.8 (95% confidence interval: 13.9, 27.8) cells/mm lower and the risk of virologic failure was 20% (14%, 26%) lower in the efavirenz regimens. CONCLUSION: Our estimates are consistent with a smaller 12-month increase in CD4 cell count, and a smaller risk of virologic failure at 12 months for efavirenz compared with atazanavir regimens. No overall differences could be detected with respect to 5-year survival or AIDS-free survival

Comparison of dynamic monitoring strategies based on CD4 cell counts in virally suppressed, HIV-positive individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy in high-income countries: a prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines vary with respect to the optimal monitoring frequency of HIV-positive individuals. We compared dynamic monitoring strategies based on time-varying CD4 cell counts in virologically suppressed HIV-positive individuals. METHODS: In this observational study, we used data from prospective studies of HIV-positive individuals in Europe (France, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK) and North and South America (Brazil, Canada, and the USA) in The HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration and The Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems. We compared three monitoring strategies that differ in the threshold used to measure CD4 cell count and HIV RNA viral load every 3–6 months (when below the threshold) or every 9–12 months (when above the threshold). The strategies were defined by the threshold CD4 counts of 200 cells per μL, 350 cells per μL, and 500 cells per μL. Using inverse probability weighting to adjust for baseline and time-varying confounders, we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of death and of AIDS-defining illness or death, risk ratios of virological failure, and mean differences in CD4 cell count. FINDINGS: 47 635 individuals initiated an antiretroviral therapy regimen between Jan 1, 2000, and Jan 9, 2015, and met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in our study. During follow-up, CD4 cell count was measured on average every 4·0 months and viral load every 3·8 months. 464 individuals died (107 in threshold 200 strategy, 157 in threshold 350, and 200 in threshold 500) and 1091 had AIDS-defining illnesses or died (267 in threshold 200 strategy, 365 in threshold 350, and 459 in threshold 500). Compared with threshold 500, the mortality HR was 1·05 (95% CI 0·86–1·29) for threshold 200 and 1·02 (0·91·1·14) for threshold 350. Corresponding estimates for death or AIDS-defining illness were 1·08 (0·95–1·22) for threshold 200 and 1·03 (0·96–1·12) for threshold 350. Compared with threshold 500, the 24 month risk ratios of virological failure (viral load more than 200 copies per mL) were 2·01 (1·17–3·43) for threshold 200 and 1·24 (0·89–1·73) for threshold 350, and 24 month mean CD4 cell count differences were 0·4 (−25·5 to 26·3) cells per μL for threshold 200 and −3·5 (−16·0 to 8·9) cells per μL for threshold 350. INTERPRETATION: Decreasing monitoring to annually when CD4 count is higher than 200 cells per μL compared with higher than 500 cells per μL does not worsen the short-term clinical and immunological outcomes of virally suppressed HIV-positive individuals. However, more frequent virological monitoring might be necessary to reduce the risk of virological failure. Further follow-up studies are needed to establish the long-term safety of these strategies. FUNDING National Institutes of Health

Emulating a target trial of statin use and risk of dementia using cohort data

OBJECTIVE: Observational data can be used to attempt to emulate a target trial of statin use and estimate analogues of intention-to-treat and per protocol effects on dementia risk. METHODS: Using data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands, we conceptualized a sequence of “trials” in which eligible individuals ages 55–80 years were classified as statin initiators or noninitiators for every consecutive month between 1993 and 2007 and were followed until diagnosis of dementia, death, loss to follow-up, or the end of follow-up. We estimated 2 types of effects of statin use on dementia and a combined endpoint of dementia or death: the effect of initiation vs no initiation and the effect of sustained use vs no use. We estimated risk by statin treatment strategy over time via pooled logistic regression. We used inverse-probability weighting to account for treatment-confounder feedback in estimation of per-protocol effects. RESULTS: Of 233,526 eligible person-trials (6,373 individuals), there were 622 initiators and 232,904 noninitiators. Comparing statin initiation with no initiation, the 10-year risk differences (95% confidence interval) were −0.1% (−2.3% to 1.8%) for dementia and 0.3% (−2.7% to 3.3%) for dementia or death. Comparing sustained statin use vs no use, the 10-year risk differences were −2.2% (−5.2% to 1.6%) for dementia and −5.1% (−10.5% to −1.1%) for dementia or death. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with sustained statin use, but not statin initiation alone, had reduced 10-year risks of dementia and dementia or death. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of initiators and events and potential for residual confounding