Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto SALVA/INSERISCI in fondo alla pagina
IRIS
Background: The risk of developing low-level viral rebound (LLVR) after achieving human immunodeficiency virus HIV-1 (HIV) RNA suppression with 2-drug regimens (2DR) compared to 3-drug regimens (3DR) remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted a matched 1:3 case-control study nested within the ICONA cohort including persons with HIV (PWH) who achieved virological suppression (≥2 consecutive HIV-RNA ≤50 copies/mL over 6 months) after 11 November 2014 (baseline [BL]). Cases were defined as PWH experiencing a single HIV-RNA of 51-199 copies/mL after BL (index date); controls were defined as those who maintained HIV-RNA ≤50 copies/mL up to the index date and were matched for history of care gaps and number of drugs failed. The cumulative incidence of LLVR after virological suppression was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and conditional logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between the current antiretroviral therapy regimen (2DR [dolutegravir/lamivudine, dolutegravir/rilpivirine, dolutegravir/doravirine, or cabotegravir/rilpivirine] vs 3DR [dolutegravir, bictegravir, rilpivirine, doravirine, boosted darunavir, or boosted atazanavir-based with a backbone of tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine]) and LLVR risk. In sensitivity analyses cases were defined as PWH experiencing 2 consecutive HIV-RNA of 51-199 copies/mL. Results: Among 1033 PWH (261 cases, 772 matched controls), 21% were female, median age was 43 (interquartile range [IQR], 34-51) years, and BL CD4 count was 601 (IQR, 379-826) cells/μL; 2DR use was 25% in cases versus 29% in controls (P = .23). Two years after viral suppression, cumulative LLVR incidence was 2.7% (95% CI, 2.3%-3.1%) when considering single LLVR events and 1.8% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.1%) when limited to 2 consecutive values. After adjusting for confounding, evidence for an association with current regimen was inconclusive (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, .57-1.29]). Conclusions: Despite the wide range of plausibility, we can exclude a risk of LLVR higher than 29% when using 2DR versus 3DR regimens.
Risk of Developing Low-Level Viral Rebound Among People With HIV Receiving 2- or 3-Drug Regimens: A Case-Control Study Nested in the ICONA Cohort
Background: The risk of developing low-level viral rebound (LLVR) after achieving human immunodeficiency virus HIV-1 (HIV) RNA suppression with 2-drug regimens (2DR) compared to 3-drug regimens (3DR) remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted a matched 1:3 case-control study nested within the ICONA cohort including persons with HIV (PWH) who achieved virological suppression (≥2 consecutive HIV-RNA ≤50 copies/mL over 6 months) after 11 November 2014 (baseline [BL]). Cases were defined as PWH experiencing a single HIV-RNA of 51-199 copies/mL after BL (index date); controls were defined as those who maintained HIV-RNA ≤50 copies/mL up to the index date and were matched for history of care gaps and number of drugs failed. The cumulative incidence of LLVR after virological suppression was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and conditional logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between the current antiretroviral therapy regimen (2DR [dolutegravir/lamivudine, dolutegravir/rilpivirine, dolutegravir/doravirine, or cabotegravir/rilpivirine] vs 3DR [dolutegravir, bictegravir, rilpivirine, doravirine, boosted darunavir, or boosted atazanavir-based with a backbone of tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine]) and LLVR risk. In sensitivity analyses cases were defined as PWH experiencing 2 consecutive HIV-RNA of 51-199 copies/mL. Results: Among 1033 PWH (261 cases, 772 matched controls), 21% were female, median age was 43 (interquartile range [IQR], 34-51) years, and BL CD4 count was 601 (IQR, 379-826) cells/μL; 2DR use was 25% in cases versus 29% in controls (P = .23). Two years after viral suppression, cumulative LLVR incidence was 2.7% (95% CI, 2.3%-3.1%) when considering single LLVR events and 1.8% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.1%) when limited to 2 consecutive values. After adjusting for confounding, evidence for an association with current regimen was inconclusive (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, .57-1.29]). Conclusions: Despite the wide range of plausibility, we can exclude a risk of LLVR higher than 29% when using 2DR versus 3DR regimens.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11570/3354829
Attenzione
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo
Citazioni
ND
0
ND
social impact
Conferma cancellazione
Sei sicuro che questo prodotto debba essere cancellato?
simulazione ASN
Il report seguente simula gli indicatori relativi alla propria produzione scientifica in relazione alle soglie ASN 2023-2025 del proprio SC/SSD. Si ricorda che il superamento dei valori soglia (almeno 2 su 3) è requisito necessario ma non sufficiente al conseguimento dell'abilitazione. La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e sugli indicatori bibliometrici alla data indicata e non tiene conto di eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori. La simulazione può differire dall'esito di un’eventuale domanda ASN sia per errori di catalogazione e/o dati mancanti in IRIS, sia per la variabilità dei dati bibliometrici nel tempo. Si consideri che Anvur calcola i valori degli indicatori all'ultima data utile per la presentazione delle domande.
La presente simulazione è stata realizzata sulla base delle specifiche raccolte sul tavolo ER del Focus Group IRIS coordinato dall’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e delle regole riportate nel DM 589/2018 e allegata Tabella A. Cineca, l’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e il Focus Group IRIS non si assumono alcuna responsabilità in merito all’uso che il diretto interessato o terzi faranno della simulazione. Si specifica inoltre che la simulazione contiene calcoli effettuati con dati e algoritmi di pubblico dominio e deve quindi essere considerata come un mero ausilio al calcolo svolgibile manualmente o con strumenti equivalenti.