Evidence Hub

Does choice of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) alter changes in cerebral function testing after 48 weeks in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected individuals commencing cART? A randomized, controlled study

Winston A, Duncombe C, Li PC, Gill JM, Kerr SJ, Puls R, Petoumenos K, Taylor-Robinson SD et al.

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2010

30 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Neurocognitive impairment remains prevalent, despite combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). Differences between changes in cerebral function and alternative cARTs have not been prospectively assessed.

METHODS: Treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected individuals randomly allocated to commence cART (tenofovir-emtricitabine plus either efavirenz [arm 1], atazanavir-ritonavir [arm 2], or zidovudine-abacavir [arm 3]) were eligible. Cerebral function tests included neurocognitive testing and assessment of cerebral metabolites using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in several anatomical voxels, including right frontal white matter and right basal ganglia, at baseline and after 48 weeks. N-acetylaspartate-to-creatine (NAA/Cr) ratios were calculated. Both the differences between changes in neurocognitive function and NAA/Cr ratios over 48 weeks and the study arms (arm 1 vs arm 2; arm 1 vs arm 3) were assessed.

RESULTS: Thirty subjects completed study procedures (9, 9, and 12 subjects in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Mean CD4+ cell counts (+/- standard deviation) were 218 +/- 87 cells/microL at baseline and 342 +/- 145 cells/microL at week 48. The mean plasma HIV-1 RNA level was <50 copies/mL for 28 of the 30 subjects at week 48. Over 48 weeks, greater improvements in identification reaction time (P = .04) and executive function (P = .02) were observed in arm 3, compared with arm 1 (0.03, -0.30, -0.50 log10 ms change in identification reaction time, in arms 1, 2, and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 30 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