Effect of atazanavir versus other protease inhibitor-containing antiretroviral therapy on endothelial function in HIV-infected persons: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: Impaired endothelial function was demonstrated in HIV-infected persons on protease inhibitor (PI)-containing antiretroviral therapy, probably due to altered lipid metabolism. Atazanavir is a PI causing less atherogenic lipoprotein changes. This study determined whether endothelial function improves after switching from other PI to atazanavir. DESIGN: Randomised, observer-blind, treatment-controlled trial. SETTING: Three university-based outpatient clinics. PATIENTS: 39 HIV-infected persons with suppressed viral replication on PI-containing regimens and fasting low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol greater than 3 mmol/l. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to continue the current PI or change to unboosted atazanavir. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Endpoints at week 24 were endothelial function assessed by flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the brachial artery, lipid profiles and serum inflammation and oxidative stress parameters. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and mean FMD values of the two treatment groups were comparable (3.9% (SD 1.8) on atazanavir versus 4.0% (SD 1.5) in controls). After 24 weeks' treatment, FMD decreased to 3.3% (SD 1.4) and 3.4% (SD 1.7), respectively (all p = ns). Total cholesterol improved in both groups (p<0.0001 and p = 0.01, respectively) but changes were more pronounced on atazanavir (p = 0.05, changes between groups). High-density lipoprotein and triglyceride levels improved on atazanavir (p = 0.03 and p = 0.003, respectively) but not in controls. Serum inflammatory and oxidative stress parameters did not change; oxidised LDL improved significantly in the atazanavir group. CONCLUSIONS: The switch from another PI to atazanavir in treatment-experienced patients did not result in improvement of endothelial function despite significantly improved serum lipids. Atherogenic lipid profiles and direct effects of antiretroviral drugs on the endothelium may affect vascular function. Trial registration number: NCT00447070.

Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study

OBJECTIVE: To study the inter-observer variation related to extraction of continuous and numerical rating scale data from trial reports for use in meta-analyses. DESIGN: Observer agreement study. DATA SOURCES: A random sample of 10 Cochrane reviews that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD), the protocols for the reviews and the trial reports (n=45) were retrieved. DATA EXTRACTION: Five experienced methodologists and five PhD students independently extracted data from the trial reports for calculation of the first SMD result in each review. The observers did not have access to the reviews but to the protocols, where the relevant outcome was highlighted. The agreement was analysed at both trial and meta-analysis level, pairing the observers in all possible ways (45 pairs, yielding 2025 pairs of trials and 450 pairs of meta-analyses). Agreement was defined as SMDs that differed less than 0.1 in their point estimates or confidence intervals. RESULTS: The agreement was 53% at trial level and 31% at meta-analysis level. Including all pairs, the median disagreement was SMD=0.22 (interquartile range 0.07-0.61). The experts agreed somewhat more than the PhD students at trial level (61% v 46%), but not at meta-analysis level. Important reasons for disagreement were differences in selection of time points, scales, control groups, and type of calculations; whether to include a trial in the meta-analysis; and data extraction errors made by the observers. In 14 out of the 100 SMDs calculated at the meta-analysis level, individual observers reached different conclusions than the originally published review. CONCLUSIONS: Disagreements were common and often larger than the effect of commonly used treatments. Meta-analyses using SMDs are prone to observer variation and should be interpreted with caution. The reliability of meta-analyses might be improved by having more detailed review protocols, more than one observer, and statistical expertise.