Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Mar 2;17(3):e0264792. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264792

Association between integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTIs) use with insulin resistance and incident diabetes mellitus in persons living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Frank Mulindwa 1,*,#, Habiba Kamal 2,3,#, Barbara Castelnuovo 1,, Robert C Bollinger 4,, Jean-Marc Schwarz 5,, Nele Brussealers 2,#
Editor: Surasak Saokaew6
PMCID: PMC8890726  PMID: 35235607

Abstract

Introduction

Poeple living with HIV have higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus and metabolic perturbations compared to non-HIV populations. Diabetes and metabolic syndrome co-morbidities add significant burden to HIV care. Currently, WHO recommends integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) as the first or second line therapy in people with HIV due to overall good tolerability and safety profile. However, whether INSTI use increases the risk of incident diabetes (with or without metabolic syndrome) compared to other anti-retroviral therapies (ART) is controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to examine this risk in HIV-positive populations receiving INSTIs compared to other ART regimens (not containing INSTIs).

Methods and analysis

The study will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. This protocol adheres to the Standard Protocol Items for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses checklist. Eligibility criteria will be original peer-reviewed published articles and conference abstracts with no language or geographical restriction; that report the ocurrence of diabetes mellitus as a discrete outcome or part of metabolic syndrome, in adult PLWHIV receiving INSTIs compared to other ART regimens. PubMed/ Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be searched from 1st- January-2000 to 31st—January-2022. Per our a priori, screening, inclusion and data extraction will be conducted separately by two investigators, and a senior researcher will be consulted in case of disagreement. The quality of included studies will be assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies and the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB2) for randomized controlled trials. The quantitative synthesis of the study outcomes will be explored in different subgroups and sensitivity analyses. Meta regression will also be performed to further test the predictors of the outcome.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is waived as the study is a review of published litterature. The analyses will be presented in conferences and published as a scientific article.

Trial registrartion

PROSPERO registration number is; CRD42021273040.

Background / Rationale

In 2016 and 2018, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) as preferred first and second line anti-retroviral therapy(ART) regimens respectively [1]. Subsequently, multiple countries moved to adopt dolutegravir (DTG) containing regimens with 41 (30%) of low-middle income countries (LMIC) having adopted DTG backbone regimens as the preferred first line therapy, and an additional 82 (60%) of LMIC making shifts to DTG containing regimens by Mid-2019 [2].

Despite a good safety profile and high tolerability, INSTIs have been linked in some reports to various metabolic abnormalities including new onset diabetes mellitus (DM) [36]. The hypothesized pathophysiology has been the medication’s ability to chelate magnesium at cellular level which in turn affects glucose transport via glucose transporter type 4 (GLUT-4) receptors causing insulin resistance (IR) [7]. Furthermore, INSTIs have been shown to cause weight gain in patients, which in turn also can contribute to insulin resistance and eventual development of diabetes mellitus [812]. These theories may however not conclusively explain multiple case reports of patients presenting with accelerated hyperglycaemia after initiation of DTG, bictegravir and raltegravir with preceding weight loss [3, 5, 13].

Data from observational studies associating INSTIs use and diabetes mellitus have been contradictory. In a large North American cohort, a 22% higher risk of diabetes was demonstrated in patients on INSTIs and protease inhibitors (PI) than those on non- nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTS) [6], while results from a large French cohort did not show any association [14].

To the best of our knowledge, one narrative systematic review has been published evaluating the association between integrase inhibitors and diabetes mellitus as a subset of metabolic syndrome [8]. Pooled studies in that narrative review were suggestive of a higher risk of diabetes and metabolic syndrome in patients on INSTI versus other HIV drug classes. In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to pool data from randomised controlled trials, case-control and cohort studies with clear temporal causality so as to ascertain and quantify this association.

Aim

To assess the association between the use of integrase strand transfer inhibitors in people living with HIV with new onset type 2 diabetes mellitus and insulin resistance compared to other ART regimens.

Objectives and hypothesis

Objective

To assess the risk of developing insulin resistance (IR) and new onset diabetes mellitus, as a discrete outcome or part of metabolic syndrome in HIV positive populations treated with INSTIs compared to other ART regimens.

Hypothesis

We hypothesize that use of INSTIs is associated with increased insulin resistance and diabetes mellitus compared to other ART regimens.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA-7) [15] and the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) [16] guidelines will be followed in the execution and reporting of this systematic review and meta-analysis. This protocol adheres to the Standard Protocol Items for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses checklist [17].

Inclusion criteria

Time interval

Published peer-reviewed articles and conference abstracts between 1st-January 2000 to 31st- January-2022 will be considered. We shall consider studies from 2000 so as to capture phase III trials given the first INSTI was FDA approved in 2007 [18].

Study designs

Randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies in English without geographical restriction.

Study setting

single, multi-centre, population-based and different levels of care will be included. Studies will be selected without geographical restrictions.

Study participants

HIV positive individuals with no diabetes and/or metabolic syndrome at study entry, receiving INSTIs compared to patients on other ART regimens. We will include both ART experienced patients switching to integrase inhibitors and ART naïve patients newly starting integrase inhibitors.

Exposure and comparator group

Exposure will be defined as taking any of the INSTIs for ≥ 12 weeks i.e. raltegravir, elvitegravir, dolutegravir, bictegravir, and cabotegravir, without protease inhibitors or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, independent of additional ART products. Comparator groups will be patients on protease inhibitors and/or non-nucleoside transcriptase inhibitors.

Study outcome

Studies with the following outcome definitions will be included (Table 1):

Table 1. Definition of study outcome measures.

Study outcome Acceptable outcome measures in individual studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis
Diabetes mellitus ADA criteria [24]: HbA1C ≥6.5% or FPG ≥126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L) or 2-h PG ≥200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) during an OGTT
WHO criteria [19]:
Fasting plasma glucose values of ≥ 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dl) OR
2-h post-load plasma glucose ≥ 11.1 mmol/L (200 mg/dl) OR
HbA1c ≥ 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) OR
Random blood glucose ≥ 11.1 mmol/L (200 mg/ dl) in the presence of signs and symptoms.
Need for diabetes medication
Metabolic syndrome 1-NCEP ATP III criteria [25]: The presence of three or more of the following risk determinants: 
Increased waist circumference (>102 cm [>40 in] for men, >88 cm [>35 in] for women); 
Elevated triglycerides (≥150 mg/dl); 
Low HDL cholesterol (<40 mg/dl in men, <50 mg/dl in women); 
Hypertension (≥130/≥85 mmHg); and 
Impaired fasting glucose (≥110 mg/dl)
2-WHO criteria [22]: Glucose intolerance, DM2 or insulin-resistance in addition to at least two of the following:
BMI > 30 and HWR > 0.9 (M) and > 0.85 (F)
Serum TG ≥ 150mg/dl
Serum HDL < 35mg/dl (M), <39mg/dl (F)
Blood pressure ≥ 140/90 or on hypertension treatment
Other risk factors: microalbuminuria ≥20mcg/min
3-IDF [21]: DM/ Glucose intolerance and two or more criteria
Fasting glucose of 100-125mg/dl Or DM 2
WC ≥ 94cm (M), 80cm (F)
TG ≥150mg/dl
HDL <40mg/dl or <50mg/dl
On treatment for SAH/ BP ≥130/85mmHG
4-European Group for Study of Insulin Resistance definition [26]: Elevated plasma insulin (>75th percentile) plus two other factors from among the following:
Abdominal obesity: waist circumference (WC) ≥94 cm in men and ≥80 cm in women
Hypertension: ≥140/90 mm of Hg or on antihypertensive treatment
Elevated triglycerides (≥150 mg/dl) and/or reduced HDL-C (<39 mg/dl for both men and women)
Elevated plasma glucose: impaired fasting glucose (IFG) or IGT, but no diabetes
Insulin resistance Homeostatic model for Insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) [23]

ADA- American Diabetes Association, HbA1C- Glycated Hemoglobin, PG- Plasma Glucose, OGTT- Oral Glucose Tolerance test, WHO- World Health Organization, NCEP ATP III- National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III, HDL- High Density Lipoproteins, DM2- Diabetes Mellitus type II, BMI- Body Mass Index, TG- triglycerides, IDF-International Diabetes Federation, WC- Waist Circumference, SAH- Systemic Arterial Hypertension, BP- Blood Pressure, IFG- Impaired Fasting Glucose, IGT- Impaired Glucose Tolerance, HOMA-IR- Homeostatic Model for Insulin Resistance.

Diabetes: WHO [19] or American Diabetes Association (ADA) diagnostic criteria [20] or need for diabetes medication.

Metabolic syndrome: according to International Diabetes Federation (IDF) [21] or World Health Organisation (WHO) [22] diagnostic criteria.

Insulin resistance: Homeostatic model for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) [23].

Outcome measures

Studies reporting; diabetes mellitus relative risks, mean changes in blood glucose or mean changes in HOMA-IR. Adjusted relative risks will be sought whenever available, otherwise raw data to calculate unadjusted effect estimates will be included.

Exclusion criteria

The following studies will be excluded:

  1. Cross-sectional, prevalence analysis and self-report of outcomes.

  2. Non-HIV populations, pregnant individuals, assessing the outcome in the same population at different time intervals.

  3. Studies reporting sole outcomes as changes of weight or fat distribution.

  4. Studies reporting the effect of interventional exercise or drugs on metabolic parameters (anti-diabetes drugs, statins or other lipid lowering drugs)

  5. Studies analysing the same cohort (studies with eligible design and with the most complete set of results will be considered).

  6. Studies lacking data to compute risk estimates (authors will be contacted).

Source of information and search strategy

A systematic literature search will be conducted by Karolinska Institute librarians (S1 Checklist). The following databases will be searched: Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Web of science databases and results will be managed in endnote library. After removal of duplicate citations, screening by title and abstract will be conducted to sort articles for full review. If data is overlapping, the study with the longest follow-up period and the most extractable data will be included. For the screened studies, backward and forward citation tracking will be performed to identify additional studies. Reviews and editorials will be searched for relevant literature. Grey literature will be searched using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRE) as well as conference proceedings of the major international HIV conferences, for published studies that meet the study a priori.

Data extraction

Data items

The following data items will be collected independently by FM and HK in excel sheets with disagreements resolved by a senior reviewer, NB

Study title, author, year of publication, journal, country, design, setting, study period, inclusion and exclusion criteria, follow-up duration, baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, outcome measures at baseline and at end of follow up. For unavailable data, we will contact authors for supplemental data

Risk of bias and study quality assessment

Publication bias will be assessed by Egger’s test via funnel plot symmetry assessment for all the included studies. Quality assessment of individual studies will be carried out by two reviewers and a senior reviewer will help solve disagreements. For included RCTs, the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs [27] and the Newcastle Ottawa scale for cohort studies [28] will be used. Results will be reported in a table form for easy interpretation. We will not exclude studies based on the quality scores but rather perform sensitivity analysis to evaluate the effect of individual study quality on the final results of the meta-analysis.

Data synthesis

Incidence rates or hazard ratios for incident diabetes with corresponding 95%CIs will be pooled together in a random effects model. In studies reporting mean changes in blood glucose and HOMA-IR, means with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) will be calculated in a random effects model. The most adjusted means will be considered.

Forest plots will be created to visually inspect and analyse the effect sizes and corresponding 95% CI. If possible, subgroup analysis or meta-regression (if more or equal to 10 studies) will be performed for crude and adjusted estimates, particular integrase inhibitor, study designs, sex, age, duration of follow-up, geographical origin of the study population, ART status on enrolment into the study (first- or second-line treatment), and other HIV-related factors to assess contribution to effect sizes.

Heterogeneity across studies will be assessed with Higgins’s I2 test [29]. I2 >75% will be considered indicative of high statistical heterogeneity, >50% of moderate and <25% of low statistical heterogeneity across studies.

Confidence in cumulative evidence

This study will assess the available evidence regarding the association of the use of INSTIs and development of diabetes mellitus. It will additionally explore a possible causative hypothesis i.e. insulin resistance, towards the development of diabetes. Previous systematic reviews about the association of INSTIs and diabetes have largely been narrative. The proposed meta-analysis will bridge this gap.

Per our a priori, we are selecting robust study designs with clear causal inferences i.e. RCTs, nested case control studies with baseline IR/ blood glucose measurements and cohort studies which will enhance pooled study quality.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. Performance of the proposed systematic review protocol on the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist.

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Karolinska Institute librarians; GunBrit Knutssön & Narcisa Hannerz for performing the preliminary data search.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.“Updated recommendations on first-line and second-line antiretroviral regimens and post-exposure prophylaxis and recommendations on early infant diagnosis of HIV.” https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-CDS-HIV-18.51 (accessed Mar. 15, 2021).
  • 2.WHO, “WHO policy adoption and implementation status in countries,” 2019.
  • 3.Lamorde M. et al. , “Dolutegravir-associated hyperglycaemia in patients with HIV,” The Lancet HIV, vol. 7, no. 7. Elsevier Ltd, pp. e461–e462, Jul. 01, 2020, doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(20)30042-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.“Possible Higher Diabetes Risk With INSTIs or PIs Than NNRTIs.” http://www.natap.org/2019/IDWeek/IDWeek_13.htm (accessed Jan. 30, 2020).
  • 5.McLaughlin M., Walsh S., and Galvin S., “Dolutegravir-induced hyperglycaemia in a patient living with HIV,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 73, no. 1. Oxford University Press, pp. 258–260, Jan. 01, 2018, doi: 10.1093/jac/dkx365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rebeiro P. F. et al. , “LB9. The Effect of Initiating Integrase Inhibitor-based vs. Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor-based Antiretroviral Therapy on Progression to Diabetes among North American Persons in HIV Care,” Open Forum Infect. Dis., vol. 6, no. Supplement_2, pp. S996–S997, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz415.2492 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fong P. S., Flynn D. M., Evans C. D., and Korthuis P. T., “Integrase strand transfer inhibitor-associated diabetes mellitus: A case report,” International Journal of STD and AIDS, vol. 28, no. 6. SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 626–628, May 01, 2017, doi: 10.1177/0956462416675107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Shah S. and Hill A., “Risks of metabolic syndrome and diabetes with integrase inhibitor-based therapy,” Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 16–24, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000695 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Menard A. et al. , “Dolutegravir and weight gain: An unexpected bothering side effect?,” AIDS, vol. 31, no. 10. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, pp. 1499–1500, Jun. 19, 2017, doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001495 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Menard A. et al. , “Dolutegravir and weight gain,” AIDS, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 1499–1500, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001495 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kassem Bourgi J. R. K., Jenkins Cathy, Rebeiro Peter F., Lake Jordan E., Moore Richard D., Mathews W. C., et al., “Greater weight gain among treatment-naive persons starting integrase inhibitors,” 2019. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.“ClinicalThought—INSTIs and Metabolic Effects—ClinicalThought—Current ART 2021—HIV—Clinical Care Options.” https://www.clinicaloptions.com/hiv/programs/2021/current-art-2021/clinicalthought/ct1/page-1 (accessed May 21, 2021).
  • 13.“(No Title).” https://www.icar2020.it/reservedArea/pages/poster/pdf/P117.pdf (accessed May 21, 2021).
  • 14.Ursenbach A. et al. , “Incidence of diabetes in HIV-infected patients treated with first-line integrase strand transfer inhibitors: A French multicentre retrospective study,” J. Antimicrob. Chemother., vol. 75, no. 11, pp. 3344–3348, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1093/jac/dkaa330 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.“(No Title).” http://www.prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA 2009 checklist.pdf (accessed Mar. 15, 2021).
  • 16.“MOOSE (Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) Checklist.”
  • 17.Shamseer L. et al. , “Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation,” BMJ, vol. 349, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Scholar E., “Raltegravir,” xPharm Compr. Pharmacol. Ref., pp. 1–4, 2009, doi: 10.1016/B978-008055232-3.64423-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.“Classification of diabetes mellitus.” https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/classification-of-diabetes-mellitus (accessed Aug. 09, 2021).
  • 20.Association A. D., “Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of medical care in Diabetesd2018,” Diabetes Care, vol. 41, no. Supplement 1, pp. S13–S27, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.2337/dc18-S002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.“Consensus statements.” https://www.idf.org/e-library/consensus-statements/60-idfconsensus-worldwide-definitionof-the-metabolic-syndrome.html (accessed Aug. 09, 2021).
  • 22.“WHO_NCD_NCS_99.2.pdf.” [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gutch M., Kumar S., Razi S. M., Gupta K., and Gupta A., “Assessment of insulin sensitivity/resistance,” Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 160–164, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.4103/2230-8210.146874 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.“Diagnosis | ADA.” https://www.diabetes.org/a1c/diagnosis (accessed Apr. 09, 2020).
  • 25.Alexander C. M., Landsman P. B., Teutsch S. M., and Haffner S. M., “NCEP-Defined Metabolic Syndrome, Diabetes, and Prevalence of Coronary Heart Disease Among NHANES III Participants Age 50 Years and Older,” Diabetes, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 1210–1214, May 2003, doi: 10.2337/diabetes.52.5.1210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.“Comment on the provisional report from the WHO consultation.”
  • 27.“RoB 2: A revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials | Cochrane Bias.” https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials (accessed Oct. 11, 2021).
  • 28.“Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale Case Control Studies.”
  • 29.“9.5.2 Identifying and measuring heterogeneity.” https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_9/9_5_2_identifying_and_measuring_heterogeneity.htm (accessed Oct. 11, 2021).

Decision Letter 0

Surasak Saokaew

10 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-34754Association between integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTIs) use with insulin resistance and incident diabetes mellitus in persons living with HIV; A systematic review and meta-analysis protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Frank Mulindwa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 24 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Surasak Saokaew, PharmD, PhD, BPHCP, FACP

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an important study and the manuscript reads well. Overall it is technically sound. I did have a number of queries and considerations which may be pertinent.

1. Could the authors explain how they will account for prior ART exposure, and previous ART regimens

2. The period of study is over a large time period January 2000 to May 2021. There have been several clinical management developments during this time which may have a bearing. Have the authors considered this and might a shorter time period of review be more advantageous in this respect.

3. It is difficult to define a priori sub group analysis but some ideas of potential areas may enhance the protocol. Amongst this geographical and ethnic subgroups might provide useful insights.

Reviewer #2: It's an interesting study. There are no studies evaluating the association between Integrase inhibitor and diabetes or insulin resistance.

The authors should use official abbreviation for drug group name.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 2;17(3):e0264792. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264792.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Jan 2022

Reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #1: This is an important study and the manuscript reads well. Overall, it is technically sound. I did have a number of queries and considerations which may be pertinent.

1. Could the authors explain how they will account for prior ART exposure, and previous ART regimens

>> Reply: We plan to perform a sub -group analysis to evaluate the effect on integrase inhibitors on incident diabetes and insulin resistance in ART naïve patients and ART exposed patients. This is highlighted on page 9 (data synthesis, lines; 196-201; Forest plots will be created to visually inspect and analyse the effect sizes and corresponding 95% CI. If possible, subgroup analysis or meta-regression (if more or equal to 10 studies) will be performed for crude and adjusted estimates, particular integrase inhibitor, study designs, sex, age, duration of follow-up, geographical origin of the study population, ART status on enrolment into the study (first- or second-line treatment), and other HIV-related factors to assess contribution to effect sizes.

However, we agree with the reviewer that certain types of ART (previous exposure) may confound the present risk to diabetes more than other types. We have included this in the summary page- page 2- limitations

2. The period of study is over a large time period January 2000 to May 2021. There have been several clinical management developments during this time which may have a bearing. Have the authors considered this and might a shorter time period of review be more advantageous in this respect.

>> Reply: We used that timeline so as to capture phase III trials comparing efficacy of integrase inhibitors as compared to protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. The first integrase inhibitor, Raltegravir was FDA approved in 2007 and how far backwards we searched was informed by a preliminary data search. We agree with the reviewer that over that time, various advances have been made with integrase inhibitors including the introduction of dolutegravir, elvitegravir, bictegravir and carbotegravir. We hope to account for this by performing sub group analysis according to the individual integrase inhibitor as highlighted on page 9 (data synthesis, lines; 196-201). This would help delineate whether newer generation drugs in that class are different from the older drugs in terms of glucose metabolism.

Additionally to capture new studies which would have been published, we have extended our search timeline from May 2021 to 31st – January – 2022 as highlighted on page 3, line 57-62 and page 5, lines 118-120.

3. It is difficult to define a priori sub group analysis but some ideas of potential areas may enhance the protocol. Amongst this geographical and ethnic subgroup might provide useful insights.

>> Reply: we added these to the protocol as follows (page 9, line 197-201); If possible, subgroup analysis or meta-regression (if more or equal to 10 studies) will be performed for crude and adjusted estimates, particular integrase inhibitor, study designs, sex, age, duration of follow-up, geographical origin of the study population, ART status on enrolment into the study (first- or second-line treatment), and other HIV-related factors to assess contribution to effect sizes.

Reviewer #2: It's an interesting study. There are no studies evaluating the association between Integrase inhibitor and diabetes or insulin resistance.

The authors should use official abbreviation for drug group name.

>> Reply: Thank you very much for the comment. We found the two acceptable abbreviations for HIV integrase inhibitors are: INI- integrase inhibitors and INSTI- integrase strand transfer inhibitors. In our manuscript we used ‘INSTI’.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Surasak Saokaew

17 Feb 2022

Association between integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTIs) use with insulin resistance and incident diabetes mellitus in persons living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

PONE-D-21-34754R1

Dear Dr. Frank Mulindwa

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Surasak Saokaew, PharmD, RPh, PhD, BPHCP, FACP, FCPA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Surasak Saokaew

21 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-34754R1

Association between integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTIs) use with insulin resistance and incident diabetes mellitus in persons living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Dear Dr. Mulindwa:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Surasak Saokaew

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. Performance of the proposed systematic review protocol on the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist.

    (DOC)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES