Assessing efficacy of different nucleos(t)ide backbones in NNRTI-containing regimens in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The most recommended NRTI combinations as first-line antiretroviral treatment for HIV-1 infection in resource-rich settings are tenofovir/emtricitabine, abacavir/lamivudine, tenofovir/lamivudine and zidovudine/lamivudine. Efficacy studies of these combinations also considering pill numbers, dosing frequencies and ethnicities are rare. METHODS: We included patients starting first-line combination ART (cART) with or switching from first-line cART without treatment failure to tenofovir/emtricitabine, abacavir/lamivudine, tenofovir/lamivudine and zidovudine/lamivudine plus efavirenz or nevirapine. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to investigate the effect of the different NRTI combinations on two primary outcomes: virological failure (VF) and emergence of NRTI resistance. Additionally, we performed a pill burden analysis and adjusted the model for pill number and dosing frequency. RESULTS: Failure events per treated patient for the four NRTI combinations were as follows: 19/1858 (tenofovir/emtricitabine), 9/387 (abacavir/lamivudine), 11/344 (tenofovir/lamivudine) and 45/1244 (zidovudine/lamivudine). Compared with tenofovir/emtricitabine, abacavir/lamivudine had an adjusted HR for having VF of 2.01 (95% CI 0.86-4.55), tenofovir/lamivudine 2.89 (1.22-6.88) and zidovudine/lamivudine 2.28 (1.01-5.14), whereas for the emergence of NRTI resistance abacavir/lamivudine had an HR of 1.17 (0.11-12.2), tenofovir/lamivudine 11.3 (2.34-55.3) and zidovudine/lamivudine 4.02 (0.78-20.7). Differences among regimens disappeared when models were additionally adjusted for pill burden. However, non-white patients compared with white patients and higher pill number per day were associated with increased risks of VF and emergence of NRTI resistance: HR of non-white ethnicity for VF was 2.85 (1.64-4.96) and for NRTI resistance 3.54 (1.20-10.4); HR of pill burden for VF was 1.41 (1.01-1.96) and for NRTI resistance 1.72 (0.97-3.02). CONCLUSIONS: Although VF and emergence of resistance was very low in the population studied, tenofovir/emtricitabine appears to be superior to abacavir/lamivudine, tenofovir/lamivudine and zidovudine/lamivudine. However, it is unclear whether these differences are due to the substances as such or to an association of tenofovir/emtricitabine regimens with lower pill burden.

Methodology used in studies reporting chronic kidney disease prevalence : a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Many publications report the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the general population. Comparisons across studies are hampered as CKD prevalence estimations are influenced by study population characteristics and laboratory methods. METHODS: For this systematic review, two researchers independently searched PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all original research articles that were published between 1 January 2003 and 1 November 2014 reporting the prevalence of CKD in the European adult general population. Data on study methodology and reporting of CKD prevalence results were independently extracted by two researchers. RESULTS: We identified 82 eligible publications and included 48 publications of individual studies for the data extraction. There was considerable variation in population sample selection. The majority of studies did not report the sampling frame used, and the response ranged from 10 to 87%. With regard to the assessment of kidney function, 67% used a Jaffe assay, whereas 13% used the enzymatic assay for creatinine determination. Isotope dilution mass spectrometry calibration was used in 29%. The CKD-EPI (52%) and MDRD (75%) equations were most often used to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR). CKD was defined as estimated GFR (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) in 92% of studies. Urinary markers of CKD were assessed in 60% of the studies. CKD prevalence was reported by sex and age strata in 54 and 50% of the studies, respectively. In publications with a primary objective of reporting CKD prevalence, 39% reported a 95% confidence interval. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this systematic review showed considerable variation in methods for sampling the general population and assessment of kidney function across studies reporting CKD prevalence. These results are utilized to provide recommendations to help optimize both the design and the reporting of future CKD prevalence studies, which will enhance comparability of study results.