ArticlePloS one2009
Monitoring virologic responses to antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults in Kenya: evaluation of a low-cost viral load assay.
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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of the performance of HIV viral load technologies on plasma samples.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Can HIV reverse transcriptase activity assay be a low-cost alternative for viral load monitoring in resource-limited settings?BMJ open · 2016Trial
- Diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2019Review
- Assessment of the Cavidi ExaVir Load Assay for Monitoring Plasma Viral Load in HIV-2-Infected Patients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Point of Care Technologies for HIV.AIDS research and treatment · 2014Review
- Low-cost tools for diagnosing and monitoring HIV infection in low-resource settings.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2012Article
- Early detection of HIV infection among Kenyan infants using a reverse transcriptase activity assay.The Pediatric infectious disease journal · 2012Article
- Comparison of the RealTime HIV-1, COBAS TaqMan 48 v1.0, Easy Q v1.2, and Versant v3.0 assays for determination of HIV-1 viral loads in a cohort of Canadian patients with diverse HIV subtype infections.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- 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 · 2010Article
- The Percentage of Patients Experiencing Financial Strain Depends on the Screening Measure: Evidence From a Cross-Sectional Survey of Adult Members of an Integrated Healthcare Delivery System.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.