ArticleCurrent infectious disease reports2011
When to start antiretroviral therapy.
Article in Current infectious disease reports, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of transcriptional profiles between CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in HIV type 1-infected patients.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2014Article
- Cure for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome--a global battle.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antiretrovirals perform superbly in combating HIV infection. But when to initiate therapy in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, hepatitis-free, HIV-infected persons is not securely established. Of two completed randomized trials using modern therapy, a Haitian trial demonstrated a benefit to initiating therapy between 200 and 350 CD4 cells/mm(3) as compared with less than 200 CD4 cells/mm(3) and an international trial demonstrated a benefit to starting at greater than 350 CD4 cells/mm(3) as compared with less than 250 CD4 cells/mm(3). Many observational cohorts support initiating treatment at less than 350 CD4 cells/mm(3). Of these, three large studies supported initiation at less than 350 cells/mm(3), less than 450 CD4 cells/mm(3), and less than 500 CD4 cells/mm(3), respectively, but only the last supported starting at higher counts. Such studies are not probative, given the problem of confounding. No conventional antiretroviral regimen is free of long-term adverse effects, especially over decades of use. All are expensive and require expensive monitoring. When resources are restricted, initiation of antiretrovirals for persons with high CD4 count diverts treatment from more needy persons. Pathophysiological considerations favor universal treatment because antiretrovirals mitigate systemic inflammation, which aggravates atherosclerosis. There are suggestions that HIV hastens the natural decline of cognitive, renal, and pulmonary function as well as bone mineral loss; the mechanism(s) are uncertain, as is the ability of antiretrovirals to counteract the probable acceleration. The four major guideline panels, although all have issued updates in the past year, are not consistent in recommendations for treatment of HIV-infected persons with counts greater than 350 CD4 cells/mm(3).
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.