Is ritonavir-boosted atazanavir a risk for cholelithiasis compared to other protease inhibitors?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of complicated cholelithiasis in patients receiving ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r)- containing antiretroviral therapy with those on other protease inhibitors (PIs).

DESIGN

We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients who started either ritonavir-boosted ATV/r- or other PIs (ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir, unboosted fosamprenavir, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ritonavir-boosted darunavir) -containing antiretroviral therapy.

METHODS

The incidence of complicated cholelithiasis was determined in each group. Complicated cholelithiasis was defined as follows: 1) cholelithiasis complicated by cholecystitis, cholangitis, or pancreatitis or 2) symptomatic cholelithiasis or choledocholithiasis which required invasive procedures such as cholecystomy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The effects of ATV/r were estimated by univariate and multivariate Cox hazards models as the primary exposure.

RESULTS

Complicated cholelithiasis was diagnosed in 3 patients (2.23 per 1000 person-years) in the ATV/r group (n = 466), and 3 (1.64 per 1000 person-years) in the other PIs group (n = 776), respectively. The incidence was not statistically different in the two groups by log-rank test (P = 0.702). By univariate and multivariate analysis adjusted for age and body weight, ATV/r use was not associated with cholelithiasis. (HR = 1.365; 95% CI, 0.275-6.775; p = 0.704) (adjusted HR = 1.390; 95% CI, 0.276-7.017; p = 0.690). For the 3 patients who developed cholelithiasis in the ATV/r group, the time to the diagnosis of cholelithiasis was 18, 34, and 39 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the incidence of complicated cholelithiasis was low and was not different between patients on ATV/r and those on other PIs. On the contrary to ATV/r-associated nephrolithiasis, the possible risk of cholelithiasis should not preclude the use of ATV/r.