• Who we are
    • About us
    • Our values
    • Environmental, social & governance
    • Therapeutic areas
  • What we do
    • Consulting (Acsel Health)
    • HEOR & market access
    • Scientific communications
    • Patient engagement
  • Insights
  • News & Events
  • Join us
    • Careers
    • Reasons to join
  • Contact us
  • Menu Menu

Publication Library / Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of dolutegravir relative to common core agents in treatment-naïve patients infected with HIV-1: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) provide comparative treatment effects estimates in the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This NMA compared the efficacy and safety of dolutegravir (DTG) with other recommended or commonly used core antiretroviral agents.

Methods

A systematic review identified phase 3/4 RCTs in treatment-naïve patients with HIV-1 receiving core agents: ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PIs), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), or integrase strand inhibitors (INSTIs). Efficacy (virologic suppression [VS], CD4+ cell count change from baseline) and safety (adverse events [AEs], discontinuations, discontinuation due to AEs, lipid changes) were analyzed at Week 48 using Bayesian NMA methodology, which allowed calculation of probabilistic results. Subgroup analyses were conducted for VS (baseline viral load [VL] ≤/> 100,000copies/mL, ≤/> 500,000copies/mL; baseline CD4+ ≤/>200cells/μL). Results were adjusted for the nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) combined with the core agent (except subgroup analyses).

Results

The NMA included 36 studies; 2 additional studies were included in subgroup analyses only. Odds of achieving VS with DTG were statistically superior to PIs (odds ratios [ORs] 1.78-2.59) and NNRTIs (ORs 1.51-1.86), and similar but numerically higher than other INSTIs. CD4+ count increase was significantly greater with DTG than PIs (difference: 23.63-31.47 cells/μL) and efavirenz (difference: 34.54 cells/μL), and similar to other core agents. INSTIs were more likely to result in patients achieving VS versus PIs (probability: 76-100%) and NNRTIs (probability: 50-100%), and a greater CD4+ count increase versus PIs (probability: 72-100%) and NNRTIs (probability: 60-100%). DTG was more likely to result in patients achieving VS (probability: 94-100%), and a greater CD4+ count increase (probability: 53-100%) versus other core agents, including INSTIs (probability: 94-97% and 53-93%, respectively). Safety outcomes with DTG were generally similar to other core agents. In patients with baseline VL > 100,000copies/mL or ≤ 200 CD4+cells/μL (18 studies), odds of achieving VS with DTG were superior or similar to other core agents.

Conclusion

INSTI core agents had superior efficacy and similar safety to PIs and NNRTIs at Week 48 in treatment-naïve patients with HIV-1, with DTG being among the most efficacious, including in patients with baseline VL > 100,000copies/mL or ≤ 200 CD4+cells/μL, who can be difficult to treat.

Authors S J Snedecor, M Radford, D Kratochvil, R Grove, Y S Punekar
Journal BMC Infectious diseases
Therapeutic Area Infectious diseases and vaccines
Center of Excellence Health Economic Modeling & Meta-analysis
Year 2019
Read full article

Services

  • Consulting
  • HEOR & market access
  • Scientific communications
  • Creative communications
  • Patient engagement

Company

  • About Us
  • Our values
  • Environmental, social & governance
  • Our commitment to rare disease
  • Careers
  • Reasons to join
  • News & insights
  • Events
  • Locations & contact

Legal and Governance

  • Terms of use
  • Privacy notice
  • Cookie policy
  • IT security measures
  • Modern slavery statement
  • Disclosure UK – ABPI
  • Looking for OpenHealth Company?
  • Legal statements & documents
  • Global ethical business conduct code
  • Suppliers
footer-logo-mark
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© Copyright OPEN Health 2025. All rights reserved. OPEN Health is a registered trademark.

backtotop-arrow
Scroll to top