Find in Library

Introduction We compared the effectiveness of tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) combined with either lopinavir/r (LPV/r) or another recommended third drug in the 2010 French guidelines in antiretroviral‐naïve patients starting combination antiretroviral therapy in 2004–2008 in the French Hospital Database on HIV. Methods The outcomes were stop or switch of the third component, viral load (VL) <500 copies/ml, an increase of at least 100 CD4 cells/mm3, AIDS‐defining event and non‐AIDS‐defining hospitalization or death. Propensity scores were estimated by logistic regression based on the clinical centre and other confounders. In each clinical centre, each patient initiating LPV/r was matched with a patient initiating another third drug (efavirenz or atazanavir/r) and having a close propensity score. Cox's proportional hazards models were then used, with treatment as covariate. Time was right‐censored at four years. Results 1269 patients started LPV/r plus TDF/FTC, and 890 could be matched to 890 patients receiving another third drug. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between these two groups. LPV/r was associated with a higher risk of third drug stop (hazard ratio (HR): 1.69; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.42–2.00) and with less rapid viral suppression (HR: 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72–0.95). There was no difference in the time required for a CD4 cell increment of at least 100/mm3, or to the occurrence of an AIDS‐defining event. Non‐AIDS‐defining hospitalizations or deaths were more frequent with LPV/r (HR: 1.79; 95% CI, 1.33–2.39). Conclusions For first‐line therapy, in this observational setting, TDF/FTC plus LPV/r were less durable than TDF/FTC plus another recommended third drug, led to a less rapid viral suppression and were associated with a higher risk of non‐AIDS morbidity.