Boosted lopinavir- versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: a prospective study of HIV-infected individuals in high-income countries

Lauren E Cain, Andrew Phillips, Ashley Olson, Caroline Sabin, Sophie Jose, Amy Justice, Janet Tate, Roger Logan, James M Robins, Jonathan A C Sterne, Ard van Sighem, Peter Reiss, James Young, Jan Fehr, Giota Touloumi, Vasilis Paparizos, Anna Esteve, Jordi Casabona, Susana Monge, Santiago MorenoRémonie Seng, Laurence Meyer, Santiago Pérez-Hoyos, Roberto Muga, François Dabis, Marie-Anne Vandenhende, Sophie Abgrall, Dominique Costagliola, Miguel A Hernán, HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines consider regimens consisting of either ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone among their recommended and alternative first-line antiretroviral regimens. However, these guidelines are based on limited evidence from randomized clinical trials and clinical experience.

METHODS: We compared these regimens with respect to clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes using data from prospective studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals in Europe and the United States in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration, 2004-2013. Antiretroviral therapy-naive and AIDS-free individuals were followed from the time they started a lopinavir or an atazanavir regimen. We estimated the 'intention-to-treat' effect for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens on each of the outcomes.

RESULTS: A total of 6668 individuals started a lopinavir regimen (213 deaths, 457 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths), and 4301 individuals started an atazanavir regimen (83 deaths, 157 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths). The adjusted intention-to-treat hazard ratios for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], .53-.91) for death, 0.67 (95% CI, .55-.82) for AIDS-defining illness or death, and 0.91 (95% CI, .84-.99) for virologic failure at 12 months. The mean 12-month increase in CD4 count was 8.15 (95% CI, -.13 to 16.43) cells/µL higher in the atazanavir group. Estimates differed by NRTI backbone.

CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates are consistent with a lower mortality, a lower incidence of AIDS-defining illness, a greater 12-month increase in CD4 cell count, and a smaller risk of virologic failure at 12 months for atazanavir compared with lopinavir regimens.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1262-8
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Infectious Diseases
Volume60
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Apr 2015

Bibliographical note

© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Boosted lopinavir- versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: a prospective study of HIV-infected individuals in high-income countries'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this