Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19714253›Full record

ArticlePloS one2009

Monitoring virologic responses to antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults in Kenya: evaluation of a low-cost viral load assay.

Sumathi Sivapalasingam, Beatrice Wangechi, Fatuma Marshed, Maura Laverty, Shaffiq Essajee, Robert S Holzman, Fred Valentine

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2019
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Point of Care Technologies for HIV.AIDS research and treatment · 2014
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Performance characteristics of the Cavidi ExaVir viral load assay and the ultra-sensitive P24 assay relative to the Roche Monitor HIV-1 RNA assay.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2010
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sumathi SivapalasingamDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, United States of America. Sumathi.sivapalasingam@gmail.com
Beatrice Wangechi
Fatuma Marshed
Maura Laverty
Shaffiq Essajee
Robert S Holzman
Fred Valentine
New York University · USTechnical University of Mombasa · KE

Funding

VIROLOGY COREP30AI027742 · NIAID · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI GORNY, MIROSLAW K · 1989 to 2010
$19.4M
NIAID NIH HHS 3 P30 AI27742-15S2NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI027742
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA key advantage of monitoring HIV viral load (VL) in persons receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) is the ability to detect virologic failure before clinical deterioration or resistance occurs. Detection of virologic failure will help clarify the need for enhanced adherence counseling or a change to second- line therapy. Low-cost, locally performable alternates to expensive VL assays are needed where resources are limited. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe monitored the response to 48-week ART in 100 treatment-naïve Kenyan adults using a low-cost VL measurement, the Cavidi reverse transcriptase (RT) assay and gold-standard assays, Roche RNA PCR and Bayer Versant HIV-1 RNA (bDNA) assays. In Altman-Bland plots, the mean difference in viral loads between the three assays was small (<0.5 log(10) copies/mL). However, the limits of agreement between the methods exceeded the biologically relevant change of 0.5 log copies/ml. Therefore, the RT assay cannot be used interchangeably with the other assays to monitor individual patients. The RT assay was 100% sensitive in detecting viral loads of > or =400 copies/ml compared to gold-standard assays. After 24 weeks of treatment, viral load measured by the RT assay was undetectable in 95% of 65 patients with undetectable RNA PCR VL (<400 copies/ml), 90% of 67 patients with undetectable bDNA VL, and 96% of 57 patients with undetectable VL in both RNA PCR and bDNA assays. The negative predictive value of the RT assay was 100% compared to either assay; the positive predictive value was 86% compared to RNA PCR and 70% compared to bDNA.

conclusionThe RT assay compared well with gold standard assays. Our study highlights the importance of not interchanging viral load assays when monitoring an individual patient. Furthermore, the RT assay may be limited by low positive predictive values when used in populations with low prevalence of virologic failure.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsViral LoadAdolescentAdultAnti-HIV AgentsChildFemaleHIV-1HIV InfectionsHumansKenyaMaleMiddle AgedPolymerase Chain ReactionYoung AdultAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID19714253
PMCPMC2730572
OpenAlexW1983604803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.