We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Ritonavir plus saquinavir versus single protease inhibitor therapy in protease inhibitor-naive HIV-infected patients: the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.
HIV Medicine 2002 October
OBJECTIVES: To compare the response to ritonavir (RTV) plus saquinavir (SQV) with single protease inhibitor (PI) therapies among PI-naive HIV-1 infected individuals.
METHODS: Response to treatment was analysed according to the intent-to-treat principle in a prospective observational cohort study of 177 patients who between May 1995 and March 2000 started a double PI therapy with RTV and SQV (nonboosting dosages) plus at least one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) and 2,214 patients with a single PI therapy plus two NRTIs. We used survival analysis and Cox's proportional hazard regression methods. The primary endpoint was the time to a plasma viral load of < 400 copies/mL. Secondary endpoints were taken as a gain in the CD4 count of >100 cells/microL, and change of initial PI for any reason.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics in both treatment groups were balanced. Median follow-up in both groups was 10.4 months. Time to an HIV-1 viral load of < 400 copies/mL and an increase in the CD4 count of >100 x 10(6) cells/L was shorter for RTV plus SQV compared with single PI regimens (log rank test for each endpoint P < 0.05). The adjusted hazard ratios of RTV plus SQV compared with single PI regimens were 1.21 (95% confidence interval 0.99-1.47) for achieving an HIV-1 viral load of < 400 copies/mL, 1.12 (0.88-1.42) for an increase in the CD4 count of > 100 cells/microL, and 0.90 (0.73-1.11) for change of first PI regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with RTV plus SQV compared with single PI regimens appeared to give similar results for virological or immunological response.
METHODS: Response to treatment was analysed according to the intent-to-treat principle in a prospective observational cohort study of 177 patients who between May 1995 and March 2000 started a double PI therapy with RTV and SQV (nonboosting dosages) plus at least one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) and 2,214 patients with a single PI therapy plus two NRTIs. We used survival analysis and Cox's proportional hazard regression methods. The primary endpoint was the time to a plasma viral load of < 400 copies/mL. Secondary endpoints were taken as a gain in the CD4 count of >100 cells/microL, and change of initial PI for any reason.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics in both treatment groups were balanced. Median follow-up in both groups was 10.4 months. Time to an HIV-1 viral load of < 400 copies/mL and an increase in the CD4 count of >100 x 10(6) cells/L was shorter for RTV plus SQV compared with single PI regimens (log rank test for each endpoint P < 0.05). The adjusted hazard ratios of RTV plus SQV compared with single PI regimens were 1.21 (95% confidence interval 0.99-1.47) for achieving an HIV-1 viral load of < 400 copies/mL, 1.12 (0.88-1.42) for an increase in the CD4 count of > 100 cells/microL, and 0.90 (0.73-1.11) for change of first PI regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with RTV plus SQV compared with single PI regimens appeared to give similar results for virological or immunological response.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app