Corey Ritchings

Cardiovascular outcomes among HIV-infected veterans receiving atazanavir

Objective: Patients with HIV infection have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease compared with uninfected individuals. Antiretroviral therapy with atazanavir (ATV) delays progression of atherosclerosis markers; whether this reduces cardiovascular disease event risk compared with other antiretroviral regimens is currently unknown. Design: Population-based, noninterventional, historical cohort study conducted from 1 July 2003 through 31 December 2015. Setting: Veterans Health Administration hospitals and clinics throughout the United States. Participants: Treatment-naive patients with HIV infection (N = 9500). Antiretroviral exposures: Initiating antiretroviral regimens containing ATV, other protease inhibitors, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), or integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs). Main outcome/effect size measures: Incidence rates of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause mortality within each regimen. ATV versus other protease inhibitor, NNRTI, or INSTI covariate-adjusted hazard ratios by using Cox proportional hazards models and inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: Incidence rates for MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality with ATV-containing regimens (5.2, 10.4, and 16.0 per 1000 patient-years, respectively) were lower than with regimens containing other protease inhibitors (10.2, 21.9, and 23.3 per 1000 patient-years), NNRTIs (7.5, 15.9, and 17.5 per 1000 patient-years), or INSTIs (13.0, 33.1, and 21.5 per 1000 patient-years). After inverse probability of treatment weighting, adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality with ATV-containing regimens versus all non-ATV-containing regimens were 0.59 (0.41–0.84), 0.64 (0.50–0.81), and 0.90 (0.73–1.11), respectively. Conclusion: Among treatment-naive HIV-infected patients in the Veterans Health Administration initiating ATV-containing regimens, risk of both MI and stroke were significantly lower than in those initiating regimens containing other protease inhibitors, NNRTIs, or INSTIs.

No difference in persistence to treatment with atazanavir or darunavir in HIV patients in a real-world setting

There is a lack of data comparing the protease inhibitors (PIs) atazanavir (ATV) and darunavir (DRV) in a real‐world setting. This study compared persistence (time to switch/discontinuation) to therapy between ATV‐treated and DRV‐treated patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

Persistence, adherence, and all-cause healthcare costs in atazanavir- and darunavir-treated patients with human immunodeficiency virus in a real-world setting

Abstract Objectives: Atazanavir (ATV) and darunavir (DRV) are protease inhibitors approved for HIV treatment in combination with ritonavir (/r). The objectives of this study were to compare persistence (time to treatment discontinuation/modification), adherence, and healthcare costs among patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) initiating ATV/r or DRV/r. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used commercial and Medicaid administrative insurance claims data. Patients initiating ATV/r or DRV/r from 2006–2013 with continuous enrollment for ≥6 months before and ≥3 months after initiation were included. Patients were followed from initiation until discontinuation/modification (≥30 day gap in ATV or DRV or initiation of a new antiretroviral medication), during which time adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC], with PDC ≥80% or 95% considered adherent) and per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were measured. DRV/r patients were propensity score matched to ATV/r patients at a 1:1 ratio to achieve balance on potentially confounding demographic and clinical factors. Commercial and Medicaid samples were analyzed separately, as were antiretroviral (ART)-naïve and experienced patients. Results: The final samples comprised 2988 commercially-insured and 1158 Medicaid-insured patients. There were no significant differences in hazards of discontinuation/modification between the ATV/r or DRV/r cohorts. With respect to odds of being adherent, the only marginally significant result was comparing odds of achieving PDC ≥80% among ART-naïve Medicaid patients, which favored ATV/r. All other adherence comparisons were not significant. Although ATV/r cohorts tended to have lower PPPM costs, the majority of these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Patients with HIV treated with either ATV/r or DRV/r had similar time to treatment discontinuation/modification, adherence, and monthly healthcare costs. Results were similar across the pre-specified sub-groups. These findings are useful not only as an insight into clinical practice, but also as a resource for healthcare providers and payers evaluating treatment options for HIV+ individuals.