There was a difference in the rate of drug resistance favouring ATV/r (RR 3.94, 95% CI 2.37–6.56; P < 0.00001) but the overall rate of emergent drug resistance was low for both treatments. This difference is a class effect and has previously been reported for other NNRTIs and PI/r. Differences were also identified in the rate of grade 3/4 central nervous this website system (CNS) events and the rate of lipid abnormalities favouring both ATV/r and RAL. These differences may well influence the choice between preferred third agents for individual patients. There are no RCTs comparing DRV/r vs. EFV directly. Thus an indirect comparison was undertaken using data from studies comparing DVR/r

vs. LPV/r [35-37] and LPV/r vs. EFV [17, 18] to assess

outcomes between the two treatment options. Some differences between these studies were identified in terms of comparability and are outlined in Appendix 3. Overall, these differences were judged insufficient to invalidate an indirect comparison between EFV and DRV/r. Comparing DRV/r and LPV/r there were clinically significant differences in the critical outcomes virological suppression, discontinuation due to adverse events and serious adverse events in favour of DRV/r but no differences in the critical outcomes virological failure and drug resistance. Comparing EFV and LPV/r there were clinically significant differences in the critical outcomes virological failure and suppression at 96 weeks Neratinib price in favour of EFV but no differences in the critical outcomes drug resistance and discontinuation due to adverse events. In addition, there were significant differences in some adverse events favouring EFV over LPV/r. RPV has been compared directly with EFV in RCTs [30-32]. With respect to critical

virological outcomes there was no difference in virological suppression but there were differences in drug resistance (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20–0.72; P = 0.003) and virological failure (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.29–1.02; P = 0.06), both in favour of EFV. Pooled analyses by the investigators of the two RCTs showed the risk of virological failure PtdIns(3,4)P2 with RPV was highest in patients with a baseline VL >100 000 copies/mL [32]. For critical safety outcomes there was a difference in the proportion discontinuing for adverse events in favour of RPV (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.15–4.57; P = 0.02) but no difference in serious adverse events. RPV also had better lipid profile outcomes. The StAR study showed overall noninferiority of the fixed-dose combination of TDF/FTC/RPV to fixed-dose TDF/FTC/EFV at 48 weeks. In a subgroup analysis in patients with baseline viral load less than 100 000 copies/mL, superiority of the RPV-based regimen was demonstrated. Similarly to ECHO and THRIVE, StAR confirmed higher rates of virological failure on RPV at high viral loads (greater than 100 000 copies/mL) but not at lower baseline viral load (less than 100 000 copies/mL).