Table 4.
Characteristics of studies identified by the systematic literature review that assessed the effect of use of STR vs MTR on viral suppression (objective 3)
| Study, year (country or region) | Study population (study period) | Adherence measurement | Results | Did STR improve viral outcomes (yes/no)? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chakraborty et al,58 2016 (USA) | South Carolina residents, aged ≥13 years, living with HIV who have at least one viral load reported (2004–2013) | NA | Significant association between STR use and faster decline in community viral load | Yes |
| Dejesus et al,3 2009 (USA, Puerto Rico) | ART-experienced HIV-infected patients who are on their first ART regimen or who had documented viral suppression on a previous protease inhibitor-based regimen at the time of prior change in therapy (2006–2007) | Pill counts and self-reported VAS | Both STR and MTR resulted in comparable virologic suppression | No |
| DeJesus et al,59 2012 (Multinational) | Treatment-naïve patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of ≥5,000 copies/mL and susceptibility to atazanavir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir (2011–2014) | NA | Proportion of patients with virologic success (HIV-1 RNA concentrations of ≤50 copies/mL) at week 48 did not differ significantly between regimens | No |
| Hanna et al,5 2014 (USA) | Any person-visit in the WIHS during which an HIV-infected woman self-reported ART use in the previous 6 months and had a valid HIV-1 viral load measurement (2006–2013) | Self-reported (WIHS) | STR use was significantly associated with virologic suppression | Yes |
| Tennant et al,32 2015 (USA) | Patients with HIV (aged ≥18 years) (2007–2010) | MPR | MTR was similarly likely to result in virologic suppression (OR=1.11; 95% CI=0.62–1.99) | No |
Abbreviations: ART, antiretroviral therapy; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; MPR, medication possession ratio; MTR, multiple-tablet regimen; NA, not applicable; OR, odds ratio; STR, single-tablet regimen; VAS, visual analog scale; WIHS, Women’s Interagency HIV Study.