Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 18, 2026.

Lower Pill Burden and Once-Daily Antiretroviral Treatment Regimens for HIV Infection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Jean B. Nachega, Jean-Jacques Parienti, Olalekan A. Uthman and 7 more

Clinical Infectious Diseases · 2014 · Meta-analysis

doi:10.1093/cid/ciu046

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Contemporary antiretroviral treatment regimens are simpler than in the past, with lower pill burden and once-daily dosing frequency common. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the impact of pill burden and once-daily vs twice-daily dosing on ART adherence and virological outcomes. METHODS: A literature search of 4 electronic databases through 31 March 2013 was used. RCTs comparing once-daily vs twice-daily ART regimens that also reported on adherence and virological suppression were included. Study design, study population characteristics, intervention, outcome measures, and study quality were extracted. Study quality was rated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria (N = 6312 adult patients). Higher pill burden was associated with both lower adherence rates (P = .004) and worse virological suppression (P < .0001) in both once-daily and twice-daily subgroups, although the association with adherence in the once-daily subgroup was not statistically significant. The average adherence was modestly higher in once-daily regimens than twice-daily regimens (weighted mean difference = 2.55%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 3.87; P = .0002). Patients on once-daily regimens did not achieve virological suppression more frequently than patients on twice-daily regimens (relative risk [RR] = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.03; P = .50). Both adherence and viral load suppression decreased over time, but adherence decreased less with once-daily dosing than with twice-daily dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Lower pill burden was associated with both better adherence and virological suppression. Adherence, but not virological suppression, was slightly better with once- vs twice-daily regimens.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 18, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected patients, adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is a primary determinant of virological suppression, disease progression, and death. ART regimens are now simpler than they were in the past, with lower pill burden and dosing frequency; they have also become less toxic and better tolerated. In 2006, tenofovir–emtricitabine–efavirenz became the first approved branded, fixed-dose, single-tablet regimen (STR). Two other STRs were subsequently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: tenofovir–emtricitabine–rilpivirine and tenofovir–emtricitabine–elvitegravir–cobicistat, both of which are currently recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Little is known about the impact of once- vs twice-daily ART and pill burden on adherence and virological outcomes. Indeed, in some patients with suboptimal adherence and/or virological failure, reducing the pill burden may be more important than switching from a twice-daily regimen to a once-daily regimen. Furthermore, governments, third-party payers, and HIV programs may prefer the use of non-coformulated ART generics because they are less expensive than brand name STRs. Therefore, as more generics become available, there is the potential for a paradoxical “desimplification,” with movement away from STR regimens.

A 2009 meta-analysis by Parienti and colleagues of 11 randomized trials reported that ART adherence rates were significantly better with once-daily than with twice-daily regimens, with a modest effect that was more pronounced at the time of treatment initiation and was not observed in ART-experienced patients. However, that study did not find a significant effect of once-daily vs twice-daily regimens on virological outcome, possibly because of insufficient statistical power. Since 2009, more randomized clinical trials comparing once- vs twice-daily regimens have been published, allowing a pooled meta-analysis with greater power to reinvestigate this question as well as the impact of pill burden. Also, these more recent trials investigated better-tolerated, more contemporary regimens that are currently in wide clinical use.

Thus, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of pill burden and once- vs twice-daily ART on adherence as well as virological outcomes in both ART-naive and -experienced HIV-infected adults.

Protocol and Registration

The study background, rationale, and methods were specified in advance and documented in a protocol that was published in the PROSPERO register (CRD42012002515).

Inclusion Criteria

We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared once-daily vs twice-daily regimens in either ART-naive or -experienced patients with objective measures of adherence and measures of virological outcomes.

Search Strategy

We systematically searched the following databases from their inception until 31 March 2013 (including those years searched by the Parienti meta-analysis): Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, Google scholar, and Web of Science. Our search terms included the following: “HIV,” “treatment simplification,” “co-formulation,” “fixed-dose combination,” “QD,” “twice-daily,” “once-daily,” “adherence,” “HAART,” “ART,” “cART,” and “patient preference.” We also searched abstracts from major HIV/AIDS and infectious diseases conferences (from 2008 onward) including Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections, International AIDS Conference, International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Treatment, Pathogenesis and Prevention, International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, and Infectious Diseases Society of America Conference. In addition, the bibliographies of relevant review articles, metaanalyses, and selected articles were examined for pertinent studies.

Study Selection

We evaluated each identified study using the following predetermined selection criteria: open-label RCTs of HIV-infected subjects either ART naive or ART experienced that compared once-daily ART regimens with any twice-daily antiretroviral regimens and assessed both adherence (using objective measures, such as pill count or medication event monitoring system [MEMS]) and viral suppression (percentage of subjects with HIV-1 RNA levels < 50 copies/mL or < 200 copies/mL in the intent-to-treat, missing-equals-failure analysis). Placebo-controlled, blinded trials were excluded because the regimen frequency was identical for the comparator arms (to maintain blinding) and, therefore, the impact of the placebo on adherence could not be measured. We chose to exclude trials that used self-reported adherence as the patients are more likely to overestimate adherence due to social desirability and typically these trials do not reflect true variability in adherence due to a ceiling effect.

Validity Assessment

We used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias for quality assessment of the included studies. The studies were graded based on the following: sequence generation, blinding of outcome assessor, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other sources of bias. The other sources of bias considered whether the analysis was intention-to-treat. We summarized the global assessment for each trial as low risk, unclear, or high risk of bias.

Data Extraction

Three reviewers (O. A. U., J. J. P., and J. B. N.) independently evaluated the eligibility and methodological quality of studies obtained from the literature search. These same reviewers also independently extracted and compared the data. For each identified study that met the selection criteria, details on study design, study population characteristics, intervention, outcome measures, and study quality were extracted. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus through discussion.

Summary Measures

The primary measures of treatment effects were weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for adherence to treatment and relative risk (RR) with 95% CI for virological suppression. We used the following methods to compute effect sizes, when incompletely reported: contact with the corresponding author; estimation of the standard deviation (SD) on the basis of the sample size, median, and range as suggested by Hozo and colleagues or on the basis of the sample size and P value; and imputation of the SD reported in similar studies.

Statistical Analysis

The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rho) was used to examine the associations between regimen pill burden (daily number of tablets), length of follow-up period, adherence rates, and virological response.

We used DerSimonian and Laird random effect models to synthesize results across studies due to anticipated heterogeneity resulting from the differences in methodology, population, and ART regimen. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, which reports the percentage of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance. Based on a significant interaction previously found in the meta-analysis by Parienti et al, subgroup analyses were prespecified to explore the reasons for heterogeneity. These were based on patient characteristics at baseline, including the following: treatment-naive individuals initiating their first regimens of ART, treatment-experienced individuals with virological suppression, and treatment-experienced individuals with treatment failure (ie, lack of virological suppression).

We examined the reliability and conclusiveness of the available evidence using a trial sequential analysis (TSA) and the sample size required for a reliable and conclusive meta-analysis. Therefore, we calculated the sample size (ie, the heterogeneity-corrected optimal information size [HOIS]) required to detect or reject a once-daily regimen intervention effect of minimal relevant difference of 2 percentage points in mean adherence and a 10% RR difference in viral suppression. We then used the HOIS to construct Lan-DeMets sequential monitoring boundaries for our cumulative metaanalyses analogous to interim monitoring in an RCT. We conducted the TSA with the intention of maintaining an overall 5% risk of a type I error and 20% risk of a type II error.

This review was performed according to the PRISMA recommendations for meta-analyses of RCTs. Stata 12 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX) and Review Manager 5.2 software (http://ims.cochrane.org/revman) were used for meta-analysis; Trial Sequential Analysis Software, version 0.9 beta (www.ctu.dk/tsa), was used for the trial sequential analyses.

Study Selection and Characteristics

The literature search yielded 428 articles (Figure 1). After review, 46 articles were selected for critical reading. Of the 46 articles, 27 did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded. Nineteen studies with useable outcome data involving 6312 individuals met the inclusion criteria and were included. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the included studies. The studies were published between 2004 and 2011; 11 studies with 3029 patients were included in the earlier meta-analysis and 8 additional studies with 3283 patients were identified. Most studies (18/19; 95%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. Seven studies (37%) included treatment-naive patients, 9 (47%) evaluated treatment-experienced patients with suppressed viral loads, and 3 (16%) evaluated treatment-experienced patients with unsuppressed viral loads. The median duration of follow-up was 48 weeks (range, 4–96 weeks). Most studies (N = 17; 89%) reported both adherence and virological suppression. Eleven studies (58%) used MEMS to measure adherence, and 8 studies used pill count ratio. Supplementary Table 1 shows the characteristics of studies that were excluded from the meta-analysis, and Supplementary Table 2 shows the assessment of bias risk among the included studies.

Pill Burden

There was a negative and statistically significant association (Figure 2A) between adherence and pill burden (Spearman correlation = −0.45; 95% CI, −.67 to −.16; P =.004) for both once-daily and twice-daily regimens. However, when the analysis was stratified by the regimens, the association between adherence and pill burden was significant in the twice-daily regimens (Spearman correlation = −0.67; 95% CI, −.86 to −.37; P =.001) but not in the once-daily regimens (Spearman correlation = −0.22; 95% CI, −.60 to.25; P =.35). There was also a statistically significant negative association (Figure 2B) between pill burden and virological suppression (Spearman correlation = −0.70; 95% CI, −.84 to −.49; P <.0001), which was significant in both the once-daily (Spearman correlation = −0.63; 95% CI, −.85 to −.23; P =.005) and twice-daily subgroups (Spearman correlation = −0.75; 95% CI, −.90 to −.44; P =.0003).

Once-Daily Dosing

When all populations were combined, mean adherence was slightly higher among participants following once-daily regimens than those; following twice-daily regimens (WMD = 2.55%; 95% CI, 1.23–3.87; P =.0002; Figure 3). The trial sequential analysis demonstrated that for the regimens evaluated, the meta-analysis was conclusive (Supplementary Figure 1). In prespecified subgroup analyses, the greater average adherence with once-daily vs twice-daily dosing was more pronounced in treatment-naive patients (WMD = 3.94%; 95% CI, 1.42–6.47; P =.002; Figure 3) and treatment-experienced patients with virological failure switching to once-daily dosing (WMD = 5.28%; 95% CI,.60–9.96; P = 0.03; Figure 3) than in treatment-experienced patients who switched (for simplification/convenience) when their viral load was suppressed (WMD = 0.97%; 95% CI,.38–1.55; P = 0.53, Figure 3). These differences between subgroups were statistically significant (P =.02 for interaction). There was no significant difference in virological suppression among patients following once-daily vs twice-daily regimens (RR = 1.01; 95% CI,.98–1.03; P =.57; I2 = 0%, Figure 4). Trial sequential analysis suggested that as of 2007 (after the ninth trial), sufficient evidence had accrued to demonstrate that the likelihood of finding a treatment effect was too low to justify further data collection. We therefore conclude that any possible intervention effect of once-daily regimens vs twice-daily regimens is lower than a 10% RR reduction in virological suppression (the prespecified threshold; Supplementary Figure 2). Furthermore, there was no significant difference between once- and twice-daily regimens in virological suppression in the treatment-naive or -experienced subgroups (Figure 4).

Duration of Follow-up and Treatment Effects

Adherence declined significantly over time (Spearman correlation = −0.41; 95% CI, −.64 to −.11; P =.009; Supplementary Figure 3A). When the analysis was stratified by dosing regimens, twice-daily remained statistically significant (Spearman correlation = −0.50; 95% CI, −.80 to −.03; P =.04), whereas the once-daily was not (Spearman correlation = −0.368; 95% CI,.697 to.088; P =.110). Similarly, there was a significant negative association (Supplementary Figure 3B) between virological suppression and duration of follow-up (Spearman correlation = −0.700; 95% CI, −.836 to −.482; P<.0001), such that virological suppression declined with longer follow-up. The associations were similar to the overall for both twice-daily (Spearman correlation = −0.692; 95% CI, −.876 to −.333; P =.002) and once-daily (Spearman correlation = −0.709; 95% CI, −.833 to −.362; P =.001) regimens.

Of note, in a post hoc sensitivity analysis, inclusion of studies with self-reported adherence or virological outcomes only did not materially change our results (data not shown).

DISCUSSION

This meta-analysis of 19 RCTs which included 6312 patients found that higher pill burden was associated with both lower adherence and worse virological suppression in both twice-daily and once-daily subgroups. In addition, adherence was higher with once-daily ART regimens than with twice-daily regimens when adherence was measured objectively using pill counts and/or MEMS caps. However, this difference was minimal and did not translate into better treatment outcomes. Furthermore, the greater adherence with once-daily dosing was only statistically significant in treatment-naive individuals and in those who switched from twice- to once-daily dosing with virological failure. Adherence did not increase among treatment-experienced patients who switched from twice- to once-daily dosing while virologically suppressed; adherence was likely high in these patients prior to the switch. Both adherence and virological suppression decreased with longer follow-up, but the adherence decrease was less pronounced with once-daily dosing than with twice-daily dosing.

Interestingly, none of the included randomized trials directly evaluated the effect of an STR, which we consider an unanswered question for further research. However, in our study, there was a significant negative association between pill burden and virological suppression, suggesting that regimen simplification with STRs may be helpful in select situations. One small observational study conducted among marginally housed individuals and 2 large observational studies conducted found better adherence with STRs (compared with all other regimens, whether once daily or twice daily), while 2 other observational studies found no difference between STRs and other once-daily regimens among patients starting ART or among those who were switched from STR to multitablet regimens for reasons of cost.

There are several possible explanations for the apparent lack of impact of once- vs twice-daily dosing on virological outcomes. First, the impact of once-daily dosing on adherence was relatively small (2.5% absolute increase in adherence); this was possibly too small to result in a clinically meaningful difference in virological suppression. Second, a substantial number of the trials included in this meta-analysis were of relatively short duration. Moreover, volunteers for clinical trials are likely to be more adherent than their counterparts managed in routine clinical practice, and there may be more resources available to support adherence in clinical trial settings. For these reasons, the difference in virological suppression that we found between once- and twice-daily ART regimens may be underestimated.

These results have several important practical implications. Currently, as all recommended regimens are highly potent, ART combinations should be selected based on factors such as tolerability, potential drug interactions, patient preference for dosing frequency, and pill burden, as well as structural factors (eg, cost, drug availability, access to care, insurance coverage). Efforts to improve and sustain adherence should not be limited to regimen simplification, but consideration should be given to proven evidence-based interventions to improve adherence such as social support, adherence support toolkits (eg, pillbox organizers), use of cell phone and/or text messages, treatment supporters, and other targeted interventions when necessary.

In a mathematical simulation, Walensky and colleagues showed that the future use of a once-daily regimen that includes generic efavirenz plus generic lamivudine plus branded tenofovir in the United States could yield savings of almost $1 billion per year to HIV programs. Our results suggest that these savings may be counterbalanced, in part, by worse virological outcomes if an increase in pill burden is required. However, no study, including ours, was specifically designed to directly investigate the impact of desimplification involving switching patients from once-daily STR to once-daily ART regimens containing multiple tablets. Further research is urgently needed to address this question.

Our study has several strengths. We performed a comprehensive search of several databases and sources to identify eligible RCTs that provide the highest quality of evidence. Three authors independently evaluated each study for inclusion and data extraction. Furthermore, we performed a trial sequential analysis; this is an efficient decision-making tool that is used to establish whether firm evidence of effect has been obtained. Regarding limitations, most studies were of good quality with a low risk of bias. However, to the extent that their evidence was potentially biased, those biases are mirrored in our analyses. Notably, the likelihood of attrition bias, with a systematic difference between the 2 regimens in withdrawal rates, was very high in 1 study. While there was no evidence of heterogeneity in assessing virological suppression, the level of heterogeneity between studies in assessing adherence rates was high (I2 > 50%). Also, by focusing on once-daily vs twice-daily dosing, our analysis may have masked regimen-specific effects (eg, differences in toxicity) that have little to do with the frequency of dosing. Finally, the impact of regimen frequency and pill burden on adherence and virological outcomes in RCTs may not necessarily generalize to desimplification, in which patients may perceive that their regimen has been reduced in quality. Such a change could adversely affect adherence and/or treatment outcome, and, as noted above, specific studies to investigate this question are needed.

In this meta-analysis of 19 RCTs, we confirmed that once-daily ART regimens increased adherence when compared with twice-daily regimens, but the difference was modest and not associated with a difference in virological suppression. Importantly, we found that higher pill burden was associated with lower rates of virological suppression regardless of dosing frequency. The nonlinear correlation between pill burden and adherence or virological suppression suggests that, while ART desimplification from once-daily STRs to once-daily multitablet regimens may have adverse effects on virological outcomes, separating out STRs and/or fixed-dose combinations into their constituents is not likely to have a major detrimental impact on virological outcomes (provided that the overall pill burden does not increase dramatically). Nevertheless, further research is needed to directly investigate the impact of such a switch, in particular among patients who are virologically suppressed at baseline. In the meantime, our results suggest that pill burden should be a consideration in the selection of an antiretroviral regimen, independent of dosing frequency.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary materials are available at Clinical Infectious Diseases online (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org). Supplementary materials consist of data provided by the author that are published to benefit the reader. The posted materials are not copyedited. The contents of all supplementary data are the sole responsibility of the authors. Questions or messages regarding errors should be addressed to the author.

References 88

  1. 1.

    Bangsberg DR, Perry S, Charlebois ED, et al. Non-adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy predicts progression to AIDS. AIDS. 2001;15:1181-3.

    Not in our library10.1097/00002030-200106150-00015

  2. 2.

    Nachega JB, Hislop M, Dowdy DW, Chaisson RE, Regensberg L, Maartens G. Adherence to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based HIV therapy and virologic outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:564-73.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-146-8-200704170-00007

  3. 3.

    Wood E, Hogg RS, Yip B, Harrigan PR, O'Shaughnessy MV, Montaner JS. Effect of medication adherence on survival of HIV-infected adults who start highly active antiretroviral therapy when the CD4+ cell count is 0.200 to 0.350×10(9) cells/L. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:810-6.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-139-10-200311180-00008

  4. 4.

    Nachega JB, Mugavero MJ, Zeier M, Vitoria M, Gallant JE. Treatment simplification in HIV-infected adults as a strategy to prevent toxicity, improve adherence, quality of life and decrease healthcare costs. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:357-67.

    Not in our library10.2147/ppa.s22771

  5. 5.

    Gallant JE, DeJesus E, Arribas JR, et al. Tenofovir DF, emtricitabine, and efavirenz vs. zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz for HIV. New Engl J Med. 2006;354:251-60.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa051871

  6. 6.

    Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents. 2013.

    Not in our library

  7. 7.

    Cohen CJ, Andrade-Villanueva J, Clotet B, et al. Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2011;378:229-37.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60983-5

  8. 8.

    Sax PE, DeJesus E, Mills A, et al. Co-formulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir versus co-formulated efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, analysis of results after 48 weeks. Lancet. 2012;379:2439-48.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60917-9

  9. 9.

    Recommendation on Integrase Inhibitor Use in Antiretroviral Treatment-Naive HIV-Infected Individuals from the HHS Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents (October 30, 2013). 2013.

    Not in our library

  10. 10.

    Sax PE. Generic lamivudine has arrived. HIV and ID Observations. 2012.

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations. 2012.

    Not in our library

  12. 12.

    Parienti JJ, Bangsberg DR, Verdon R, Gardner EM. Better adherence with once-daily antiretroviral regimens: a meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:484-8.

    Not in our library10.1086/596482

  13. 13.

    Thorlund K, Anema A, Mills E. Interpreting meta-analysis according to the adequacy of sample size. An example using isoniazid chemoprophylaxis for tuberculosis in purified protein derivative negative HIV-infected individuals. Clin Epidemiol. 2010;2:57-66.

    Not in our library10.2147/clep.s9242

  14. 14.

    Molina JM, Lamarca A, Andrade-Villanueva J, et al. Efficacy and safety of once daily elvitegravir versus twice daily raltegravir in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 receiving a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor: randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12:27-36.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1473-3099(11)70249-3

  15. 15.

    Maserati R, Brandolini M, Cattelan A, et al. Once-a-day (QD) vs. twice-daily (BID) nevirapine as simplification in PI-treated patients after 2 mos. of BID induction. Curr HIV Res. 2011;9:166-73.

    Not in our library10.2174/157016211795945232

  16. 16.

    Eron JJ, Rockstroh JK, Reynes J, et al. Raltegravir once daily or twice daily in previously untreated patients with HIV-1: a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11:907-15.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1473-3099(11)70196-7

  17. 17.

    Cahn P, Fourie J, Grinsztejn B, et al. Week 48 analysis of once-daily vs. twice-daily darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. AIDS. 2011;25:929-39.

    Not in our library10.1097/qad.0b013e328345ee95

  18. 18.

    Arasteh K, Ward D, Plettenberg A, et al. Twenty-four-week efficacy and safety of switching virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected patients from nevirapine immediate release 200 mg twice daily to nevirapine extended release 400 mg once daily (TRANxITION). HIV Med. 2012;13:236-44.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1468-1293.2011.00969.x

  19. 19.

    Zajdenverg R, Podsadecki TJ, Badal-Faesen S, et al. Similar safety and efficacy of once- and twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir tablets in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected subjects at 48 weeks. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;54:143-51.

    Not in our library10.1097/qai.0b013e3181cbd21e

  20. 20.

    Vispo E, Barreiro P, Maida I, et al. Simplification from protease inhibitors to once- or twice-daily raltegravir: the ODIS trial. HIV Clin Trials. 2010;11:197-204.

    Not in our library10.1310/hct1104-197

  21. 21.

    Gonzalez-Garcia J, Cohen D, Johnson M, et al. Short communication: Comparable safety and efficacy with once-daily versus twice-daily dosing of lopinavir/ritonavir tablets with emtricitabine + tenofovir DF in antiretroviral-naive, HIV type 1-infected subjects: 96 week final results of the randomized trial M05-730. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2010;26:841-5.

    Not in our library10.1089/aid.2009.0307

  22. 22.

    Flexner C, Tierney C, Gross R, et al. Comparison of once-daily versus twice-daily combination antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naive patients: results of AIDS clinical trials group (ACTG) A5073, a 48-week randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50:1041-52.

    Not in our library10.1086/651118

  23. 23.

    Cooper DA, Heera J, Goodrich J, et al. Maraviroc versus efavirenz, both in combination with zidovudine-lamivudine, for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive subjects with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 infection. J Infect Dis. 2010;201:803-13.

    Not in our library10.1086/650697

  24. 24.

    Campo RE, Cohen C, Grimm K, Shangguan T, Maa J, Seekins D. Switch from protease inhibitor- to efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy improves quality of life, treatment satisfaction and adherence with low rates of virological failure in virologically suppressed patients. Int J STD AIDS. 2010;21:166-71.

    Not in our library10.1258/ijsa.2009.008487

  25. 25.

    King MS, Lawal AA, Fredrick LM, Rode RA, Podsadecki TJ, Bernstein BM. Improved Treatment Compliance with Once-Daily (QD) Compared to Twice-Daily (BID) Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/r) in HIV-1-Infected, Antiretroviral-Experienced Subjects. 2009.

    Not in our library

  26. 26.

    Gathe J, da Silva BA, Cohen DE, et al. A once-daily lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen is noninferior to twice-daily dosing and results in similar safety and tolerability in antiretroviral-naive subjects through 48 weeks. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;50:474-81.

    Not in our library10.1097/qai.0b013e31819c2937

  27. 27.
    Suitability of measures of self-reported medication adherence for routine clinical use: A systematic review · 2011
    No notice
  28. 28.

    Kimmerling M, Wagner G, Ghosh-Dastidar B. Factors associated with accurate self-reported adherence to HIV antiretrovirals. Int J STD AIDS. 2003;14:281-4.

    Not in our library10.1258/095646203321264917

  29. 29.

    Melbourne KM, Geletko SM, Brown SL, Willey-Lessne C, Chase S, Fisher A. Medication adherence in patients with HIV infection: a comparison of two measurement methods. AIDS Read. 1999;9:329-38.

    Not in our library

  30. 30.

    Wagner GJ, Rabkin JG. Measuring medication adherence: are missed doses reported more accurately then perfect adherence? AIDS Care. 2000;12:405-8.

    Not in our library10.1080/09540120050123800

  31. 31.

    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.d5928

  32. 32.
    Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample · 2005
    No notice
  33. 33.

    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177-88.

    Not in our library10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

  34. 34.

    Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. StatMed. 2002;21:1539-58.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.1186

  35. 35.

    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557-60.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

  36. 36.

    Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:763-9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.007

  37. 37.
    Sequential methods for random‐effects meta‐analysis · 2010
    No notice
  38. 38.

    Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:64-75.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.013

  39. 39.
    Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses · 2009
    No notice
  40. 40.

    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.b2700

  41. 41.

    Benson CA, van der Horst C, Lamarca A, et al. A randomized study of emtricitabine and lamivudine in stably suppressed patients with HIV. AIDS. 2004;18:2269-76.

    Not in our library10.1097/00002030-200411190-00007

  42. 42.

    Boyle BA, Jayaweera D, Witt MD, Grimm K, Maa JF, Seekins DW. Randomization to once-daily stavudine extended release/lamivudine/efavirenz versus a more frequent regimen improves adherence while maintaining viral suppression. HIV Clin Trials. 2008;9:164-76.

    Not in our library10.1310/hct0903-164

  43. 43.

    Eron JJ, Feinberg J, Kessler HA, et al. Once-daily versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-naive HIV-positive patients: a 48-week randomized clinical trial. J Infect Dis. 2004;189:265-72.

    Not in our library10.1086/380799

  44. 44.

    Kubota M, Cohen C, Scribner A, et al. Short-Term Safety and Tolerability of ABC/3TC Administered Once-daily (QD) Compared with the Separate Components Administered Twice-daily (BID): Results from ESS101822 (ALOHA). 2006.

    Not in our library

  45. 45.

    Lamarca A, Clumeck N, Plettenberg A, et al. Efficacy and safety of a once-daily fixed-dose combination of abacavir/lamivudine compared with abacavir twice daily and lamivudine once daily as separate entities in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-1-infected patients (CAL30001 Study). J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;41:598-606.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.qai.0000214821.33905.5c

  46. 46.

    Maitland D, Jackson A, Osorio J, Mandalia S, Gazzard BG, Moyle GJ. Switching from twice-daily abacavir and lamivudine to the once-daily fixed-dose combination tablet of abacavir and lamivudine improves patient adherence and satisfaction with therapy. HIV Med. 2008;9:667-72.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1468-1293.2008.00618.x

  47. 47.

    Molina JM, Andrade-Villanueva J, Echevarria J, et al. Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine, for management of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 48 week efficacy and safety results of the CASTLE study. Lancet. 2008;372:646-55.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61081-8

  48. 48.

    Molina JM, Podsadecki TJ, Johnson MA, et al. A lopinavir/ritonavir-based once-daily regimen results in better compliance and is non-inferior to a twice-daily regimen through 96 weeks. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2007;23:1505-14.

    Not in our library10.1089/aid.2007.0107

  49. 49.

    Parienti JJ, Massari V, Reliquet V, et al. Effect of twice-daily nevirapine on adherence in HIV-1-infected patients: a randomized controlled study. AIDS. 2007;21:2217-22.

    Not in our library10.1097/qad.0b013e3282eff388

  50. 50.

    Podsadecki TJ, Rode RA, Naylor C, Cohen DE, Marsh TM. Adherence with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) tablet and SoftGel (SGC) capsule based antiretroviral regimens and predictors of early treatment compliance. J Int AIDS Soc. 2008;11(Suppl 1):P170.

    Not in our library

  51. 51.

    Portsmouth SD, Osorio J, McCormick K, Gazzard BG, Moyle GJ. Better maintained adherence on switching from twice-daily to once-daily therapy for HIV: a 24-week randomized trial of treatment simplification using stavudine prolonged-release capsules. HIV Med. 2005;6:185-90.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1468-1293.2005.00287.x

  52. 52.

    Ruane P, Lang J, DeJesus E, et al. Pilot study of once-daily simplification therapy with abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine and efavirenz for treatment of HIV-1 infection. HIV Clin Trials. 2006;7:229-36.

    Not in our library10.1310/hct0705-229

  53. 53.

    Sosa N, Hill-Zabala C, Dejesus E, et al. Abacavir and lamivudine fixed-dose combination tablet once daily compared with abacavir and lamivudine twice daily in HIV-infected patients over 48 weeks (ESS30008, SEAL). J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005;40:422-7.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.qai.0000184859.24071.bd

  54. 54.

    Gathe J, de Silva B, Loufty M. Study M05–730 primary efficacy results at week 48: phase 3, randomized, open-label study of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) tablets once-daily (QD) versus twice daily (BID), co-administered with tenofovir DF (TDF) + emtricitabine (FTC) in antiretroviral-naive (ARV) HIV-1 infected subjects [abstract 775]. 2008.

    Not in our library

  55. 55.

    Bangsberg DR, Ragland K, Monk A, Deeks SG. A single tablet regimen is associated with higher adherence and viral suppression than multiple tablet regimens in HIV+ homeless and marginally housed people. AIDS. 2010;24:2835-40.

    Not in our library10.1097/qad.0b013e328340a209

  56. 56.

    Hanna DB, Hessol NA, Golub ET, et al. Increase in single-tablet regimen use and associated improvements in adherence-related outcomes in HIV-infected women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013.

    Not in our library10.1097/qai.0000000000000082

  57. 57.

    Cohen CJ, Meyers JL, Davis KL. Association between daily antiretroviral pill burden and treatment adherence, hospitalisation risk, and other healthcare utilisation and costs in a US Medicaid population with HIV. BMJ Open. 2013;3:pii:e003028.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003028

  58. 58.

    Buscher A, Hartman C, Kallen MA, Giordano TP. Impact of antiretroviral dosing frequency and pill burden on adherence among newly diagnosed, HAART naïve, HIV patients. Int J STD & AIDS. 2012;23:351-5.

    Not in our library10.1258/ijsa.2011.011292

  59. 59.

    Engsig F, Gerstoft J, Helleberg MK, Ronborg G, Mathiesen L, Obel N. Virological Response in Patients, Who for Economic Reasons Were Changed from Atripla to a Multi-tablet cART Regimen. 2013.

    Not in our library

  60. 60.

    Chesney MA. Factors affecting adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30(Suppl 2)):S171-6.

    Not in our library10.1086/313849

  61. 61.
    Adherence to HAART: A Systematic Review of Developed and Developing Nation Patient-Reported Barriers and Facilitators · 2006
    No notice
  62. 62.

    Uchino BN. Social support and health: a review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. J Behav Med. 2006;29:377-87.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10865-006-9056-5

  63. 63.

    Petersen ML, Wang Y, van der Laan MJ, Guzman D, Riley E, Bangsberg DR. Pillbox organizers are associated with improved adherence to HIV antiretroviral therapy and viral suppression: a marginal structural model analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:908-15.

    Not in our library10.1086/521250

  64. 64.

    Barnighausen T, Chaiyachati K, Chimbindi N, Peoples A, Haberer J, Newell ML. Interventions to increase antiretroviral adherence in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of evaluation studies. Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11:942-51.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1473-3099(11)70181-5

  65. 65.

    Lester R, Karanja S. Mobile phones: exceptional tools for HIV/AIDS, health, and crisis management. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8:738-9.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1473-3099(08)70265-2

  66. 66.

    Pop-Eleches C, Thirumurthy H, Habyarimana JP, et al. Mobile phone technologies improve adherence to antiretroviral treatment in a resource-limited setting: a randomized controlled trial of text message reminders. AIDS. 2011;25:825-34.

    Not in our library10.1097/qad.0b013e32834380c1

  67. 67.

    Simoni JM, Pearson CR, Pantalone DW, Marks G, Crepaz N. Efficacy of interventions in improving highly active antiretroviral therapy adherence and HIV-1 RNA viral load. A meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;43(Suppl 1):S23-35.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.qai.0000248342.05438.52

  68. 68.

    Gross R, Bellamy SL, Chapman J, et al. Managed problem solving for antiretroviral therapy adherence: a randomized trial. JAMA Int Med. 2013;173:300-6.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2152

  69. 69.

    Walensky RP, Sax PE, Nakamura YM, et al. Economic savings versus health losses: the cost-effectiveness of generic antiretroviral therapy in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:84-92.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-158-2-201301150-00002

  70. 70.

    van der Tweel I, Bollen C. Sequential meta-analysis: an efficient decision-making tool. Clin Trials. 2010;7:136-46.

    Not in our library10.1177/1740774509360994

  71. 71.

    Shaw AL, Shen G, Wakeford CW, Quinn JB, Rousseau FS. Once-Daily Emtricitabine Compared to Twice-Daily Abacavir Within a HAART Regimen in Antiretroviral Drug-Naive HIV-1-Infected Patients (ODECTA) (Poster 547). 2003.

    Not in our library

  72. 72.

    DeJesus E, McCarty D, Farthing CF, et al. Once-daily versus twice-daily lamivudine, in combination with zidovudine and efavirenz, for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV infection: a randomized equivalence trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:411-8.

    Not in our library10.1086/422143

  73. 73.

    Wright D, Rodriguez A, Godofsky E, et al. Efficacy and safety of 48 weeks of enfuvirtide 180 mg once-daily dosing versus 90 mg twice-daily dosing in HIV-infected patients. HIV Clin Trials. 2008;9:73-82.

    Not in our library10.1310/hct0902-73

  74. 74.

    Martin A, Bloch M, Amin J, et al. Simplification of antiretroviral therapy with tenofovir-emtricitabine or abacavir-lamivudine: a randomized, 96-week trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:1591-601.

    Not in our library10.1086/644769

  75. 75.

    Martinez E, Arranz JA, Podzamczer D, et al. A simplification trial switching from nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors to once-daily fixed-dose abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine in HIV-1-infected patients with virological suppression. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;51:290-7.

    Not in our library10.1097/qai.0b013e3181aa12d5

  76. 76.

    Podzamczer D, Olmo M, Sanz J, et al. Safety of switching nevirapine twice daily to nevirapine once daily in virologically suppressed patients. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;50:390-6.

    Not in our library10.1097/qai.0b013e318198a0cc

  77. 77.

    Zajdenverg R, Badal-Faesen S, Andrade-Villanueva J, et al. Lopinavir/ ritonavir (LPV/r) tablets administered once-(QD) or twice-daily (BID) with NRTIs in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-1 Infected subjects: results of a 48-week randomized trial (Study M06-802). 2009.

    Not in our library

  78. 78.

    Airoldi M, Zaccarelli M, Bisi L, et al. One-pill once-a-day HAART: a simplification strategy that improves adherence and quality of life of HIV-infected subjects. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:115-25.

    Not in our library10.2147/ppa.s10330

  79. 79.

    Cooper V, Horne R, Gellaitry G, et al. The impact of once-nightly versus twice-daily dosing and baseline beliefs about HAART on adherence to efavirenz-based HAART over 48 weeks: the NOCTE study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;53:369-77.

    Not in our library10.1097/qai.0b013e3181ccb762

  80. 80.

    Musiime V, Kendall L, Bakeera-Kitaka S, et al. Pharmacokinetics and acceptability of once- versus twice-daily lamivudine and abacavir in HIV type-1-infected Ugandan children in the ARROW Trial. Antivir Ther. 2010;15:1115-24.

    Not in our library10.3851/imp1695

  81. 81.

    Nelson M, Girard PM, Demasi R, et al. Suboptimal adherence to darunavir/ritonavir has minimal effect on efficacy compared with lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive, HIV-infected patients: 96 week ARTEMIS data. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65:1505-9.

    Not in our library10.1093/jac/dkq150

  82. 82.

    Clumeck N, Rieger A, Banhegyi D, et al. 96 week results from the MONET trial: a randomized comparison of darunavir/ritonavir with versus without nucleoside analogues, for patients with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL at baseline. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:1878-85.

    Not in our library10.1093/jac/dkr199

  83. 83.

    Cohen C, Elion R, Ruane P, et al. Randomized, phase 2 evaluation of two single-tablet regimens elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the initial treatment of HIV infection. AIDS. 2011;25:F7-12.

    Not in our library10.1097/qad.0b013e328345766f

  84. 84.

    Honda M, Ishisaka M, Ishizuka N, Kimura S, Oka S. Open-label randomized multicenter selection study of once daily antiretroviral treatment regimen comparing ritonavir-boosted atazanavir to efavirenz with fixed-dose abacavir and lamivudine. Intern Med. 2011;50:699-705.

    Not in our library10.2169/internalmedicine.50.4572

  85. 85.

    Bunupuradah T, Chetchotisakd P, Ananworanich J, et al. A randomized comparison of second-line lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus tenofovir/lamivudine/lopinavir/ritonavir in patients failing NNRTI regimens: the HIV STAR study. Antivir Ther. 2012;17:1351-61.

    Not in our library10.3851/imp2443

  86. 86.

    Andersson LM, Vesterbacka J, Blaxhult A, et al. Lopinavir/ritonavir, atazanavir/ritonavir, and efavirenz in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected individuals over 144 weeks: An open-label randomized controlled trial. Scand J Infect Dis. 2013.

    Not in our library10.3109/00365548.2012.756985

  87. 87.

    Reynes J, Trinh R, Pulido F, et al. Lopinavir/ritonavir combined with raltegravir or tenofovir/emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive subjects: 96-week results of the PROGRESS study. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2013;29:256-65.

    Not in our library10.1089/aid.2011.0275

  88. 88.

    Bonnet M, Bhatt N, Baudin E, et al. Nevirapine versus efavirenz for patients co-infected with HIV and tuberculosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70007-0

Cited by papers we hold 3

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.