ReviewDrug safety1999
A risk-benefit assessment of HIV protease inhibitors.
Review in Drug safety, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of exercise training on symptoms of depression, physical activity level and social participation in people living with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Economic models of antiretroviral therapy: searching for the optimal strategy.PharmacoEconomics · 2006Review
- Review
- The emerging roles of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in antiretroviral therapy.Drugs · 2001Review
- Review
- Toxicity of antiretroviral nucleoside and nucleotide analogues: is mitochondrial toxicity the only mechanism?Drug safety · 2000Review
- Review
- Saquinavir soft-gel capsule: an updated review of its use in the management of HIV infection.Drugs · 2000Review
- Review
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of triple regimens, often called highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), generally involving 2 nucleoside analogues and an HIV protease inhibitor, have been endorsed as the standard of care for persons with HIV initiating therapy by a number of sets of international guidelines. The widespread availability of protease inhibitor-containing regimens has been associated with a dramatic drop in the incidence of new AIDS events and mortality throughout the developed world. Use of HAART regimens, particularly in treatment-naïve individuals, is also associated with dramatic reductions in HIV RNA load, rises in CD4+ cell numbers and improvements in some aspects of immune function. However, protease inhibitor therapy is associated with a range of adverse effects, which varies between agents, and regimens frequently involve inconvenient administration schedules and disruption to patient's lives. Thus, the undoubted benefits of antiretroviral therapy come at some cost in terms of both physical and psychological morbidity to the recipient. In assessing an individual for therapy, consideration of the risk of disease events and the benefit of therapy in reducing or preventing these events must be weighed against the potential of therapy to cause morbidity. Using these criteria, we suggest that an individual with a 3 year risk of disease progression of less than 10% (based on CD4+ cell count and HIV RNA load) is more likely to a experience a morbidity if treated with HAART than if left untreated and monitored. For individuals with higher risks of HIV progression the risk versus benefit of initiating therapy may, in many cases, still be in favour of no therapy and continued observation. This will vary depending on the individuals risks (such as family and past medical history) and on the choice of agents in the regimen, some regimens having greater risks than others.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.