Analysis of Virological Efficacy in Trials of Antiretroviral Regimens: Drawbacks of Not Including Viral Load Measurements after Premature Discontinuation of Therapy
- 1 May 2002
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Antiviral Therapy
- Vol. 7 (4) , 271-281
- https://doi.org/10.1177/135965350200700407
Abstract
Objectives: To compare two analytic approaches to assess the virological effect of HAART according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Material: Data from 2318 patients enrolled in 10 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and from 3091 patients followed in an observation cohort (EuroSIDA) starting their first HAART regimen. Methods: Two classifications of defining virological response 48 weeks after starting the therapy to be evaluated were compared: 1) only patients remaining on the therapy and having a plasma viral load (pVL) below a given cut-off level at week 48 were classified as responders (ITT/s=f); and 2) patients with a pVL below a given cut-off at week 48 whether they remained on initial assigned therapy or switched therapy were responders (ITT/s incl). In both analyses, patients with missing data at week 48 were classified as failures (i.e., non-responders). Results: According to ITT/s=f, 22–70% of the patients starting a HAART regimen in a RCT experienced a virological response at week 48. Only two RCTs had complete follow-up data ( n=424): between 29 and 62% achieved a virological response at week 48 in the six treatment arms evaluated in the studies according to ITT/s=f, and 41–72% according to ITT/s incl. Among those who discontinued the therapy to be evaluated in these two trials, 13–45% (cohort: 39–74%) subsequently experienced a virological response at week 48. The subsequent response rates were associated with the reason for discontinuation (toxicity versus confirmed virological failure: 63 vs 33%), varied largely across regimens and were not associated with the discontinuation rate. Conclusions: Discontinuation of follow-up at switch from the therapy to be evaluated remains common in anti-retroviral treatment trials, but leads to an imprecise and incomplete assessment of the intrinsic effect of a given regimen. Complete follow-up of all patients should be encouraged strongly as this will allow for several complementary analytic approaches and a focus on optimal treatment strategies rather than specific regimens.Keywords
This publication has 45 references indexed in Scilit:
- British HIV Association (BHIVA) guidelines for the treatment of HIV‐infected adults with antiretroviral therapyHIV Medicine, 2001
- Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trialsBMJ, 2001
- The Danish Protease Inhibitor Study: A Randomized Study Comparing the Virological Efficacy of 3 Protease Inhibitor–Containing Regimens for the Treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 InfectionThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2000
- AVANTI 2. Randomized, double-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zidovudine plus lamivudine versus zidovudine plus lamivudine plus indinavir in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive patientsAIDS, 2000
- Insights into the reasons for discontinuation of the first highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimen in a cohort of antiretroviral naïve patientsAIDS, 2000
- Efavirenz plus Zidovudine and Lamivudine, Efavirenz plus Indinavir, and Indinavir plus Zidovudine and Lamivudine in the Treatment of HIV-1 Infection in AdultsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1999
- Use of observational databases to evaluate the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection: comparison of cohort studies with randomized trialsAIDS, 1999
- Treatment with Amprenavir Alone or Amprenavir with Zidovudine and Lamivudine in Adults with Human Immunodeficiency Virus InfectionThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1999
- Changing patterns of mortality across Europe in patients infected with HIV-1The Lancet, 1998
- In vivo emergence of HIV-1 variants resistant to multiple protease inhibitorsNature, 1995