Comparative effectiveness of bictegravir versus dolutegravir, raltegravir, and efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy among treatment-naïve individuals with HIV

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Isaac Núñez , Yanink Caro-Vega , Conor MacDonald , Juan Luis Mosqueda , Alicia Piñeirúa-Menéndez , Anthony A. Matthews
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of bictegravir versus dolutegravir, raltegravir, and efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy among treatment-naïve individuals with HIV","authors":"Isaac Núñez ,&nbsp;Yanink Caro-Vega ,&nbsp;Conor MacDonald ,&nbsp;Juan Luis Mosqueda ,&nbsp;Alicia Piñeirúa-Menéndez ,&nbsp;Anthony A. Matthews","doi":"10.1016/j.ejim.2025.01.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Bictegravir or dolutegravir based antiretroviral therapy are first-line HIV treatments. However, no trial has recruited enough participants to estimate the most effective treatment, and there is little evidence on the comparative effectiveness of bictegravir and other available antiretrovirals, like efavirenz and raltegravir.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We emulated a four-arm target trial using country-wide data from Mexico. The eligibility criteria of the target trial were people with HIV, treatment naïve with viral load &gt;500 copies/mL, without tuberculosis, not pregnant, and started either bictegravir, dolutegravir, efavirenz or raltegravir-based treatment between July 2019 and September 2021. The main outcome was the probability of viral suppression (HIV-RNA &lt;50 copies/mL) at three months estimated using an adjusted logistic regression model, with assignment assumed to be random within levels of adjusted covariates. Probabilities were compared via differences and non-parametric bootstrapping was used to calculate 95 % confidence intervals.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>20,285 individuals were included, of whom 84.3 % started bictegravir, 7.2 % dolutegravir, 6.6 % efavirenz, and 1.8 % raltegravir. The adjusted probability of viral suppression at 3 months was 79.4 % (79.4 %, 80.2 %) with bictegravir, 78.5 % (76.2 %, 81.1 %) with dolutegravir, 63.9 % (60.6 %, 67.7 %) with efavirenz, and 69.8 % (63.8 %, 76.1 %) with raltegravir. When compared with bictegravir, this resulted in differences of −0.8 % (−3.5 %, 1.9 %) for dolutegravir, −15.5 % (−19 %, −11.7 %) for efavirenz, and −9.6 % (−15.9 %, −3.3 %) for raltegravir. Differences shrank at twelve months and with a higher viral threshold (200 copies/mL).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Bictegravir was similar to dolutegravir and slightly more effective than efavirenz or raltegravir at three months, but differences became negligible at twelve months.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50485,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Internal Medicine","volume":"133 ","pages":"Pages 86-92"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0953620525000238","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Bictegravir or dolutegravir based antiretroviral therapy are first-line HIV treatments. However, no trial has recruited enough participants to estimate the most effective treatment, and there is little evidence on the comparative effectiveness of bictegravir and other available antiretrovirals, like efavirenz and raltegravir.

Methods

We emulated a four-arm target trial using country-wide data from Mexico. The eligibility criteria of the target trial were people with HIV, treatment naïve with viral load >500 copies/mL, without tuberculosis, not pregnant, and started either bictegravir, dolutegravir, efavirenz or raltegravir-based treatment between July 2019 and September 2021. The main outcome was the probability of viral suppression (HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL) at three months estimated using an adjusted logistic regression model, with assignment assumed to be random within levels of adjusted covariates. Probabilities were compared via differences and non-parametric bootstrapping was used to calculate 95 % confidence intervals.

Results

20,285 individuals were included, of whom 84.3 % started bictegravir, 7.2 % dolutegravir, 6.6 % efavirenz, and 1.8 % raltegravir. The adjusted probability of viral suppression at 3 months was 79.4 % (79.4 %, 80.2 %) with bictegravir, 78.5 % (76.2 %, 81.1 %) with dolutegravir, 63.9 % (60.6 %, 67.7 %) with efavirenz, and 69.8 % (63.8 %, 76.1 %) with raltegravir. When compared with bictegravir, this resulted in differences of −0.8 % (−3.5 %, 1.9 %) for dolutegravir, −15.5 % (−19 %, −11.7 %) for efavirenz, and −9.6 % (−15.9 %, −3.3 %) for raltegravir. Differences shrank at twelve months and with a higher viral threshold (200 copies/mL).

Conclusions

Bictegravir was similar to dolutegravir and slightly more effective than efavirenz or raltegravir at three months, but differences became negligible at twelve months.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Internal Medicine
European Journal of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
364
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Internal Medicine serves as the official journal of the European Federation of Internal Medicine and is the primary scientific reference for European academic and non-academic internists. It is dedicated to advancing science and practice in internal medicine across Europe. The journal publishes original articles, editorials, reviews, internal medicine flashcards, and other relevant information in the field. Both translational medicine and clinical studies are emphasized. EJIM aspires to be a leading platform for excellent clinical studies, with a focus on enhancing the quality of healthcare in European hospitals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信