ReviewAIDS (London, England)2013
Recommendations for the follow-up of study participants with breakthrough HIV infections during HIV/AIDS biomedical prevention studies.
Review in AIDS (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Long-term follow-up of HIV seroconverters in microbicide trials - rationale, study design, and challenges in MTN-015.HIV clinical trials · 2016Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo facilitate collection of cumulative data on longitudinal HIV disease outcomes during HIV prevention studies by developing recommendations for follow-up of the relatively few study participants with breakthrough infections.
designWe formed a working group to compare and contrast the various approaches taken in recent HIV prevention trials, to summarize the advantages and disadvantages associated with each, and to explore the feasibility of developing protocols for the long-term follow-up of seroconverters.
methodsWe reviewed study designs, objectives, and assessments in 15 interventional studies that followed HIV seroconverters. Protocol team members joined discussions of the various approaches and developed recommendations.
resultsMost HIV prevention clinical trials share a core set of objectives, including the description/comparison of virological, immunological, and clinical course of HIV, and sometimes a comparison of preseroconversion and postseroconversion behavior. Long-term follow-up of seroconverters can be conducted in separate studies if the transition from parent protocol is effectively managed.
conclusionWe recommend the development of harmonized seroconverter protocols. Although specific research questions in the postseroconversion period may differ depending on prevention modality, harmonizing key evaluations would create an opportunity to ask overarching questions that inform the prevention field with respect to design and implementation of future combination prevention studies. Follow-up immediately postseroconversion should be conducted in the parent protocol before roll over into a follow-up protocol. Development of specimen repositories with ample volumes for future assays, standardized definitions of infection, diagnosis and seroconversion dates, and harmonization of study objectives and sample collections at key time points are important.
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.