Evidence Hub

Quadruple versus triple combination antiretroviral therapies for treatment naive people with HIV: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Feng Q, Zhou A, Zou H, Ingle S, May MT, Cai W, Cheng CY, Yang Z et al.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2019

4,251 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of four drug (quadruple) versus three drug (triple) combination antiretroviral therapies in treatment naive people with HIV, and explore the implications of existing trials for clinical practice and research.

DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from March 2001 to December 2016 (updated search in PubMed and EMBASE up to June 2018); and reference lists of eligible studies and related reviews.

STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing quadruple with triple combination antiretroviral therapies in treatment naive people with HIV and evaluating at least one effectiveness or safety outcome.

REVIEW METHODS: Outcomes of interest included undetectable HIV-1 RNA, CD4 T cell count, virological failure, new AIDS defining events, death, and severe adverse effects. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted.

RESULTS: Twelve trials (including 4251 people with HIV) were eligible. Quadruple and triple combination antiretroviral therapies had similar effects on all relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes, with no point estimates favouring quadruple therapy. With the triple therapy as the reference group, the risk ratio was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.05) for undetectable HIV-1 RNA, 1.00 (0.90 to 1.11) for virological failure, 1.17 (0.84 to 1.63) for new AIDS defining…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,251 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free