Initial highly-active antiretroviral therapy with a protease inhibitor versus a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor: discrepancies between direct and indirect meta-analyses

BACKGROUND The optimum treatment choice between initial highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) with a protease inhibitor (PI) versus a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) is uncertain. An indirect analysis reported that PI-based HAART was better than NNRTI-based HAART. However, direct evidence for competing interventions is deemed more reliable than indirect evidence for making treatment decisions. We did a meta-analysis of head-to-head trials and compared the results with those of indirect analyses. METHODS 12 trials of at least 24 weeks' duration directly compared NNRTI-based versus PI-based HAART in HIV-infected patients with limited or no previous exposure to antiretrovirals. We also identified six trials of NNRTI-based HAART and eight trials of PI-based HAART, each versus two NRTI regimens. We analysed the outcomes of virological suppression, death or disease progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events. FINDINGS In the direct meta-analysis, NNRTI-based regimens were better than PI-based regimens for virological suppression (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.31-1.96). The difference was reduced in higher-quality trials, but still favoured NNRTI-based HAART. There were no differences in death or disease progression (0.87, 0.56-1.35) or withdrawal because of adverse events (0.68, 0.43-1.08). By contrast, in indirect analyses NNRTI-based HAART was worse than PI-based HAART for virological suppression (0.26, 0.07-0.91). There were no significant differences for death or disease progression (1.28, 0.56-2.94) and withdrawals because of adverse events (1.46, 0.66-3.24). When trials of delavirdine were excluded, similar results were produced. INTERPRETATION Results from direct analyses suggested that NNRTI-based HAART was more effective than PI-based HAART for virological suppression and was similar to PI-based HAART for clinical outcomes. Indirect comparisons could be unreliable for complex and rapidly evolving interventions such as HAART.

[1]  P. Vernazza,et al.  Effects of early antiretroviral treatment on HIV-1 RNA in blood and lymphoid tissue: a randomized trial of double versus triple therapy. Swiss HIV Cohort Study. , 2000 .

[2]  M. Hughes,et al.  Efficacy and safety of delavirdine mesylate with zidovudine and didanosine compared with two-drug combinations of these agents in persons with HIV disease with CD4 counts of 100 to 500 cells/mm3 (ACTG 261). ACTG 261 Team. , 1999, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[3]  B. Clotet,et al.  Comparison of immunologic restoration and virologic response in plasma, tonsillar tissue, and cerebrospinal fluid in HIV-1-infected patients treated with double versus triple antiretroviral therapy in very early stages: The Spanish EARTH-2 Study. Early Anti-Retroviral Therapy Study. , 2000, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[4]  D. Podzamczer,et al.  A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Nelfinavir Or Nevirapine Associated to Zidovudine/Lamivudine in HIV-Infected Naive Patients (The Combine Study) , 2001, Antiviral therapy.

[5]  J. J. Henning,et al.  Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-Infected Adults and Adolescents, January 28, 2000 , 1998, HIV clinical trials.

[6]  D Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Annals of internal medicine.

[7]  David R. Jones,et al.  Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Lidia Ruiz,et al.  Alternation of Antiretroviral Drug Regimens for HIV Infection , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  M. Hughes,et al.  Efficacy and safety of delavirdine mesylate with zidovudine and didanosine compared with two-drug combinations of these agents in persons with HIV disease with CD4 counts of 100 to 500 cells/mm3 (ACTG 261) , 1999 .

[10]  M. Saag,et al.  Randomized, double-blind comparison of two nelfinavir doses plus nucleosides in HIV-infected patients (Agouron study 511) , 2001, AIDS.

[11]  Peter Jüni,et al.  Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. , 2002, JAMA.

[12]  M. Parmar,et al.  Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? , 1993, The Lancet.

[13]  P. Armstrong,et al.  Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials. , 2006, JAMA.

[14]  Joseph Quinn,et al.  Overview of the effectiveness of triple combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 infected adults , 2001, AIDS.

[15]  J. Bartlett.  Combination antiretroviral therapy and the risk of myocardial infarction , 2004 .

[16]  H S Sacks,et al.  The relationship between study design, results, and reporting of randomized clinical trials of HIV infection. , 1997, Controlled clinical trials.

[17]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  D. Podzamczer,et al.  A randomized study comparing triple versus double antiretroviral therapy or no treatment in HIV-1-infected patients in very early stage disease: the Spanish Earth-1 study. , 1999, AIDS.

[19]  L. Kalish,et al.  Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Decreases Mortality and Morbidity in Patients with Advanced HIV Disease , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  Jonathan A C Sterne,et al.  Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. , 2001, BMJ.

[21]  J. Montaner,et al.  A randomized, double-blind trial comparing combinations of nevirapine, didanosine, and zidovudine for HIV-infected patients: the INCAS Trial. Italy, The Netherlands, Canada and Australia Study. , 1998, JAMA.

[22]  D. Hawkins,et al.  Randomised, Multicentre Phase III Study of Saquinavir plus Zidovudine plus Zalcitabine in Previously Untreated or Minimally Pretreated HIV-Infected Patients , 2000 .

[23]  J. Bartlett.  Comparison of once-daily atazanavir with efavirenz, each in combination with fixed-dose zidovudine and lamivudine, as initial therapy for patients infected with HIV , 2004 .

[24]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials , 2001, The Lancet.

[25]  D. Francisci,et al.  A randomized, double-blind trial on the use of a triple combination including nevirapine, a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase HIV inhibitor, in antiretroviral-naive patients with advanced disease. , 1999, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes and human retrovirology : official publication of the International Retrovirology Association.

[26]  F. Speranza,et al.  Nevirapine or Efavirenz Combined with Two Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors Compared to HAART: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials , 2001, HIV clinical trials.

[27]  JD Lundgren,et al.  Changing patterns of mortality across Europe in patients infected with HIV-1 , 1998, The Lancet.

[28]  John W. Ward,et al.  1993 revised classification system for HIV infection and expanded surveillance case definition for AIDS among adolescents and adults. , 1993, MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports.

[29]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[30]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  [Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement]. , 2005, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[31]  M. Moroni,et al.  A randomized trial to study first-line combination therapy with or without a protease inhibitor in HIV-1-infected patients , 2003, AIDS.

[32]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[33]  F. Maggiolo,et al.  Once-A-Day Therapy for HIV Infection: A Controlled, Randomized Study in Antiretroviral-Naive HIV-1-Infected Patients , 2002, Antiviral therapy.

[34]  Michael S Saag,et al.  Treatment for Adult HIV Infection 2006 Recommendations of the International AIDS Society–USA Panel , 2006 .

[35]  Martin S. Hirsch,et al.  Treatment for adult HIV infection. , 2004 .

[36]  J. Montaner,et al.  A randomized, double-blind trial comparing combinations of nevirapine, didanosine, and zidovudine for HIV-infected patients: the INCAS Trial. Italy, The Netherlands, Canada and Australia Study. , 1998, JAMA.

[37]  M. Gartland.  Avanti 3: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lamivudine plus Zidovudine versus Lamivudine plus Zidovudine plus Nelfinavir in HIV-1-Infected Antiretroviral-Naive Patients , 2000, Antiviral therapy.

[38]  D G Altman,et al.  Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[39]  Victor De Gruttola,et al.  Comparison of sequential three-drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[40]  A. Phillips.  Trial and error: cross-trial comparisons of antiretroviral regimens , 2003, AIDS.

[41]  S D Walter,et al.  The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[42]  R. Weber,et al.  Effects of Early Antiretroviral Treatment on HIV‐1 RNA in Blood and Lymphoid Tissue: A Randomized Trial of Double Versus Triple Therapy , 2000, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[43]  K. Tashima,et al.  Efavirenz plus zidovudine and lamivudine, efavirenz plus indinavir, and indinavir plus zidovudine and lamivudine in the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults. Study 006 Team. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[44]  H. Fleury,et al.  Progression to AIDS or Death as Endpoints in HIV Clinical Trials , 2001, HIV clinical trials.

[45]  Michael S Saag,et al.  Treatment for adult HIV infection: 2006 recommendations of the International AIDS Society--USA panel. , 2006, Topics in HIV medicine : a publication of the International AIDS Society, USA.

[46]  E. Antman,et al.  Advantages and limitations of metaanalytic regressions of clinical trials data. , 1992, The Online journal of current clinical trials.

[47]  Jonathan A C Sterne,et al.  Investigating and Dealing with Publication and Other Biases , 2008 .

[48]  S. Hammer,et al.  Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in 1998: updated recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA Panel. , 1997, JAMA.

[49]  Jane Yeo,et al.  Amprenavir in Combination with Lamivudine and Zidovudine versus Lamivudine and Zidovudine Alone in HIV-1-Infected Antiretroviral-Naive Adults , 1999, Antiviral therapy.

[50]  M. Zwahlen,et al.  Clinical efficacy of antiretroviral combination therapy based on protease inhibitors or non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors: indirect comparison of controlled trials , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[51]  S. Sharp,et al.  Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. , 1999 .