Journal of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care (Chicago, Ill. : 2002) · 2010
Virologic and immunologic effectiveness of tipranavir/ritonavir (TPV/r)- versus darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r)-based regimens in clinical practice.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Antoniou Tony, Raboud J M, Diong C, Su D, Dewhurst N, Buckley V, Kovacs C, Rachlis A, Brunetta J, Smith G, Gough K, Fletcher D, Loutfy M R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although both tipranavir and darunavir are important options for the management of patients with multidrug resistant HIV, there are at present no studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of these 2 antiretroviral drugs in this population of patients.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of ritonavir (TPV/r)- and darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/ r)-based therapies in treatment-experienced patients (n = 38 and 47, respectively).
METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study.
RESULTS: The median baseline viral load and CD4 count were 4.7 copies/mL (interquartile range [IQR] 4.3, 5.2) and 168 cells/mm( 3) (IQR 80, 252) for TPV/r patients and 4.7 copies/mL (IQR 3.7, 5.1) and 171 cells/mm(3) (IQR 92, 290) for DRV/r patients. The median number of years on antiretroviral therapy (ART) prior to starting DRV/r or TPV/r were 12.7 (10.2-15.5) and 10.5 (8.4-12.6), respectively (P < .01). Current raltegravir (RAL) use (odds ratio [OR] 5.53, 95% CI 1.08-28.34) was significantly associated with virologic suppression at week 24 in multivariable logistic regression models, whereas the use of TPV/r was not significantly associated with virologic suppression compared to DRV/r (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27-3.18, P = .91).
CONCLUSION: No significant difference was observed between DRV/r and TPV/r in terms of virologic suppression.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of ritonavir (TPV/r)- and darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/ r)-based therapies in treatment-experienced patients (n = 38 and 47, respectively).
METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study.
RESULTS: The median baseline viral load and CD4 count were 4.7 copies/mL (interquartile range [IQR] 4.3, 5.2) and 168 cells/mm( 3) (IQR 80, 252) for TPV/r patients and 4.7 copies/mL (IQR 3.7, 5.1) and 171 cells/mm(3) (IQR 92, 290) for DRV/r patients. The median number of years on antiretroviral therapy (ART) prior to starting DRV/r or TPV/r were 12.7 (10.2-15.5) and 10.5 (8.4-12.6), respectively (P < .01). Current raltegravir (RAL) use (odds ratio [OR] 5.53, 95% CI 1.08-28.34) was significantly associated with virologic suppression at week 24 in multivariable logistic regression models, whereas the use of TPV/r was not significantly associated with virologic suppression compared to DRV/r (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27-3.18, P = .91).
CONCLUSION: No significant difference was observed between DRV/r and TPV/r in terms of virologic suppression.