ArticleAIDS research and human retroviruses2013
Outcomes of second combination antiretroviral therapy regimens among HIV-infected persons in clinical care: a multicenter cohort study.
Article in AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Analysis of antiretroviral therapy switch rate and switching pattern for people living with HIV from a national database in Japan.Scientific reports · 2022Observational
- A Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies a Candidate Gene Associated With Atazanavir Exposure Measured in Hair.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2018Observational
- Predictors of switch to and early outcomes on third-line antiretroviral therapy at a large public-sector clinic in Johannesburg, South Africa.AIDS research and therapy · 2018Article
- Effect of therapy switch on time to second-line antiretroviral treatment failure in HIV-infected patients.PloS one · 2017Article
- Outcomes of second-line combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected patients: a cohort study from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Short term adherence tool predicts failure on second line protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy: an observational cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Data on the effectiveness of second-line combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) are limited. We evaluated virologic outcomes of second cART in a multicenter cohort collaboration. The study population initiated first and second modern cART between 1996 and 2010. The second cART required a switch in at least the anchor agent of first cART. We evaluated time to virologic failure of second cART and factors associated with greater risk of failure using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Of 488 patients who switched to second-line cART, 67% were black and 32% were women. The median HIV-1 RNA at second cART initiation was 9,565 copies/ml [interquartile range (IQR); 123, 94,108]. The time to virologic failure of second cART was longer if HIV-1 RNA was undetectable at switch (p=0.001), although 12% and 17% of patients with undetectable and detectable HIV-1 RNA experienced virologic failure within 6 months of second cART initiation, respectively. A lower CD4 cell count at second cART initiation was associated with a greater risk of virologic failure. Failure rates decreased in more recent calendar years [adjusted relative hazard of 0.40 comparing 2008 to 2010 with 1996 to 1998 (95% confidence interval; 0.15, 1.00)]; however, type of anchor agent was not associated with failure. In conclusion, virologic failure of second cART was less likely if patients switched with undetectable HIV-1 RNA, although risk of early failure was similar. The effectiveness of second cART regimens improved over calendar time and was independent of the anchor agent in the regimen.
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.