Provider bias in the selection of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and protease inhibitor-based highly active antiretroviral therapy and HIV treatment outcomes in observational studies
- 1 December 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in AIDS
- Vol. 17 (18) , 2629-2634
- https://doi.org/10.1097/00002030-200312050-00010
Abstract
Objective: To compare the characteristics of patients prescribed non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) and protease inhibitors (PI), and evaluate treatment outcomes in a setting in which nevirapine has been preferentially recommended since 1998. Methods: A population-based analysis of antiretroviral-naive adults who started highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) between 1 August 1996 and 31 July 2000, and who were followed until 31 March 2002. We compared baseline characteristics, and evaluated virological responses and mortality. Results: Overall, 439 patients (28.8%) started HAART with NNRTI (94.1% used nevirapine), 100 (6.6%) used a double PI, and 983 (64.6%) used a single PI-based regimen. Substantial differences were observed between the baseline clinical characteristics of these populations. In adjusted analyses, in comparison with single PI therapy, only the use of NNRTI was associated with more rapid HIV-RNA suppression [relative hazard (RH) 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22–1.65; P < 0.001]. A total of 204 deaths were identified in the study population [42 (9.6%) NNRTI; 11 (11%) double PI; 151 (15.4%) single PI, respectively]. In adjusted analysis, NNRTI (RH 1.01; 95% CI 0.71–1.45) and double PI-based HAART (RH 0.74; 95% CI 0.40–1.39) had similar mortality rates to the single PI reference category. Conclusion: NNRTI use was associated with more rapid virological suppression, whereas similar rates of rebound and mortality were found. Nevertheless, major baseline differences existed between patients prescribed the various initial regimens. As such, it is likely that similar selection factors may explain why our findings contrast with several non-randomized studies showing worse clinical outcomes of patients prescribed nevirapine.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Is there a baseline CD4 cell count that precludes a survival response to modern antiretroviral therapy?AIDS, 2003
- Comparison of Nevirapine- and Efavirenz-Containing Antiretroviral Regimens in Antiretroviral-Naïve Patients: A Cohort StudyHIV Research & Clinical Practice, 2002
- Prognosis of HIV-1-infected patients starting highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis of prospective studiesThe Lancet, 2002
- Virologic and Immunologic Response to Regimens Containing Nevirapine or Efavirenz in Combination with 2 Nucleoside Analogues in the Italian Cohort Naive Antiretrovirals (I.Co.N.A.) StudyThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2002
- Rates of Disease Progression by Baseline CD4 Cell Count and Viral Load After Initiating Triple-Drug TherapyJAMA, 2001
- British HIV Association (BHIVA) guidelines for the treatment of HIV‐infected adults with antiretroviral therapyHIV Medicine, 2001
- Comparison of Virologic, Immunologic, and Clinical Response to Five Different Initial Protease Inhibitor-Containing and Nevirapine-Containing RegimensJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 2001
- Comparison of the effectiveness of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-containing and protease inhibitor-containing regimens using observational databasesAIDS, 2001
- 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