-
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Dec 2023The risk of falls in people living with HIV (PLHIVs) on antiretroviral therapy (ART) has received little attention in the literature. The aim of the meta-analysis is to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The risk of falls in people living with HIV (PLHIVs) on antiretroviral therapy (ART) has received little attention in the literature. The aim of the meta-analysis is to quantify the association between fall risk and various categories of drugs used in ART.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from inception to January 2023. Any observational study or controlled trial that reported on the relationship of at least one antiretroviral drug with falls in PLHIVs was included. Data on the frequency of single fallers, multiple fallers (≥2 falls), and non-fallers were extracted and studied for each drug and drug category. The pooled results were reported as an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of five observational studies (51 675 participants) were included out of 414 articles obtained through a literature review. Stavudine use was found to be associated with an increased risk of single falls in PLHIVs (OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.08-2.66, =0.02). However, efavirenz (OR: 0.82, 95% CI=0.76-0.89, <0.001) and zidovudine (OR: 0.82, 95% CI=0.77-0.92, <0.001) were found protective against the single falls. Didanosine had no significant association with fall risk (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.78-1.93, =0.37). Likewise, protease inhibitors, integrase inhibitors, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors were discovered to have no significant association with fall risk.
CONCLUSION
Most drug categories of ART have no significant association with the risk of falls in PLHIVs. However, certain drugs, such as didanosine and stavudine, which have the inherent effect of causing balance deficits and neuropathy, should be used cautiously.
PubMed: 38098550
DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001411 -
PloS One 2018Nearly all newly infected children acquire Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV) via mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) during pregnancy, labour or breastfeeding from... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Comparative safety and effectiveness of perinatal antiretroviral therapies for HIV-infected women and their children: Systematic review and network meta-analysis including different study designs.
BACKGROUND
Nearly all newly infected children acquire Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV) via mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) during pregnancy, labour or breastfeeding from untreated HIV-positive mothers. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is the standard care for pregnant women with HIV. However, evidence of ART effectiveness and harms in infants and children of HIV-positive pregnant women exposed to ART has been largely inconclusive. The aim of our systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of ART drugs in children exposed to maternal HIV and ART (or no ART/placebo) across different study designs.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception until December 7, 2015). Primary outcomes were any congenital malformations (CMs; safety), including overall major and minor CMs, and mother-to-child transmission (MTCT; effectiveness). Random-effects Bayesian pairwise meta-analyses and NMAs were conducted. After screening 6,468 citations and 1,373 full-text articles, 90 studies of various study designs and 90,563 patients were included.
RESULTS
The NMA on CMs (20 studies, 7,503 children, 16 drugs) found that none of the ART drugs examined here were associated with a significant increase in CMs. However, zidovudine administered with lamivudine and indinavir was associated with increased risk of preterm births, zidovudine administered with nevirapine was associated with increased risk of stillbirths, and lamivudine administered with stavudine and efavirenz was associated with increased risk of low birth weight. A NMA on MTCT (11 studies, 10,786 patients, 6 drugs) found that zidovudine administered once (odds ratio [OR] = 0.39, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.19-0.83) or twice (OR = 0.43, 95% CrI: 0.21-0.68) was associated with significantly reduced risk of MTCT.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that ART drugs are not associated with an increased risk of CMs, yet some may increase adverse birth events. Some ART drugs (e.g., zidovudine) effectively reduce MTCT.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Alkynes; Anti-HIV Agents; Benzoxazines; Child; Congenital Abnormalities; Cyclopropanes; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; HIV Infections; Humans; Infant; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Lamivudine; Network Meta-Analysis; Nevirapine; Perinatal Care; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Stavudine; Stillbirth; Zidovudine
PubMed: 29912896
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198447 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Oct 2015Abacavir is one of the recommended nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) for the treatment of HIV infections among children and adolescents. However, there... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of abacavir-containing combination antiretroviral therapy as first-line treatment of HIV infected children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Abacavir is one of the recommended nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) for the treatment of HIV infections among children and adolescents. However, there are concerns that the antiviral efficacy of abacavir might be low when compared to other NRTIs especially among children. There are also concerns that abacavir use may lead to serious adverse events such as hypersensitivity reactions and has potential predisposition to developing cardiovascular diseases
METHODS
We searched four electronic databases, four conference proceedings and two clinical trial registries in August 2014, without language restrictions. Experimental and observational studies with control groups that examined the efficacy and safety of abacavir-containing regimens in comparison with other NRTIs as first-line treatment for HIV-infected children and adolescents aged between one month and eighteen years were eligible. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies using a pre-specified, standardised data extraction form and validated risk of bias tools. We also assessed the quality of evidence per outcome with the GRADE tool.
RESULTS
We included two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two analytical cohort studies with a total of 10,595 participants. Among the RCTs we detected no difference in virologic suppression after a mean duration of 48 weeks between abacavir- and stavudine-containing regimens (2 trials; n = 326: RR 1.28; 95 % CI 0.67-2.42) with significant heterogeneity (P = 0.02; I(2) = 81 %). We also found no significant differences between the two groups for adverse events and death. After five years of follow-up, virologic suppression improved with abacavir (1 trial; n = 69: RR 1.96; 95 % CI 1.11-3.44). For cohort studies, we detected that the virologic suppression activity of abacavir was less effective than stavudine in both the lopinavir/ritonavir (1 study, n = 2165: RR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.67-0.92) and efavirenz sub-groups (1 study, n = 3204: RR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.67-0.92) respectively. The quality of evidence from RCTs was moderate for virologic suppression but low for death and adverse events, while that of cohort studies was low for all three these outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence showed little or no difference between abacavir-containing regimen and other NRTIs regarding efficacy and safety when given to children and adolescents as a first-line antiretroviral therapy.
Topics: Adolescent; Alkynes; Anti-HIV Agents; Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active; Benzoxazines; Child; Child, Preschool; Cohort Studies; Cyclopropanes; Dideoxynucleosides; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; HIV Infections; Humans; Infant; Lopinavir; Male; Ritonavir; Stavudine
PubMed: 26502899
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-015-1183-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Stavudine remains a component of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-constrained countries due to its relatively low cost despite the WHO recommendation... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Stavudine remains a component of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-constrained countries due to its relatively low cost despite the WHO recommendation for its phasing out as a strategy to reduce stavudine associated toxicities. Where stavudine is still in use, it is recommended at a dose lower than the standard dose in order to reduce stavudine related toxicity.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the safety and virologic efficacy of low dose versus high dose stavudine for treating HIV-1 infection.
SEARCH METHODS
The comprehensive search strategy developed by the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Review Group was used to identify randomised controlled trials that compared the use of low dose versus high dose stavudine. The last search was conducted in February 2014 and the searches covered the period 1996 to 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing the use of low dose and high dose stavudine as part of ART combination therapy for treating adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently selected eligible trials, assessed methodological quality of the included studies and completed data extraction and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
The search identified 3952 abstracts which were scanned for relevance. Three trials met the inclusion criteria (Milinkovic 2007; McComsey 2008; Sanchez-Conde 2005). All three trials were conducted in developed countries, participants were ART experienced and all had sustained virologic suppression at baseline. A total of 157 participants were recruited to the trials. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 92 and more than 79% of participants were male.The studies were at a high risk of selection, performance/detection and selective outcome reporting biases. Some baseline characteristics differed among the groups, including triglyceride levels in two studies and body mass index in one study. In light of variation in the design and follow-up of the study results, no meta-analysis was performed and the results of single studies are presented. There was no significant difference in virologic suppression in the included studies (Milinkovic 2007; McComsey 2008; Sanchez-Conde 2005); Risk Ratio (RR) 1.09 (95% CI: 0.93 to 1.28), 0.94 (95% CI:0.59 to 1.50) and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.18) respectively. Symptomatic hyperlactatemia was seen in the high dose arm of the Milinkovic 2007 study; RR 0.21 (95% CI: 0.01 to 4.66), in no participants in the McComsey 2008 trial and not reported on in the Sanchez-Conde 2005 trial. McComsey 2008 and Milinkovic 2007 demonstrated a reduction in bone mineral density (BMD), reduction in limb fat and an increase in triglycerides in the high dose arms. The studies did not indicate that any participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review identified only three small trials that evaluated virologic efficacy and safety of high dose versus low dose stavudine. All three trials were conducted in developed countries and none reported from developing countries yet stavudine remains a component of ART combination therapy in many developing countries. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis on these trails. Individual results from the trials were imprecise and have not identified a clear advantage in virologic efficacy or safety between low and high dose stavudine. Furthermore, enrolled participants were treatment experienced with sustained virologic suppression and so existing data cannot be generalized to settings where stavudine is currently used in ART naive patients with high viral loads. Stavudine dose reduction trials in ART naive patients, in developing countries where stavudine is still being used are warranted as the phasing out of stavudine that is recommended by WHO may not be immediately universally feasible.
Topics: Anti-HIV Agents; Developing Countries; Female; HIV Infections; HIV-1; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stavudine; Viral Load
PubMed: 25627012
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007497.pub2