ArticlePloS one2014
Comparable long-term efficacy of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and similar drug-resistance profiles in different HIV-1 subtypes.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating HIV drug resistance in the middle East and North Africa and its associated factors: a systematic review.Virology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Spectrum of Atazanavir-Selected Protease Inhibitor-Resistance Mutations.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparing mutational pathways to lopinavir resistance in HIV-1 subtypes B versus C.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- HIV-1 second-line failure and drug resistance at high-level and low-level viremia in Western Kenya.AIDS (London, England) · 2018Article
- Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Drug Resistance Mutations Update.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Article
- Impact of human immunodeficiency virus type-1 sequence diversity on antiretroviral therapy outcomes.Viruses · 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
24 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnalysis of potentially different impact of Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/r) on non-B subtypes is confounded by dissimilarities in the conditions existing in different countries. We retrospectively compared its impact on populations infected with subtypes B and C in Israel, where patients infected with different subtypes receive the same treatment.
methodsClinical and demographic data were reported by physicians. Resistance was tested after treatment failure. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS.
results607 LPV/r treated patients (365 male) were included. 139 had HIV subtype B, 391 C, and 77 other subtypes. At study end 429 (71%) were receiving LPV/r. No significant differences in PI treatment history and in median viral-load (VL) at treatment initiation and termination existed between subtypes. MSM discontinued LPV/r more often than others even when the virologic outcome was good (p = 0.001). VL was below detection level in 81% of patients for whom LPV/r was first PI and in 67% when it was second (P = 0.001). Median VL decrease from baseline was 1.9±0.1 logs and was not significantly associated with subtype. Median CD4 increase was: 162 and 92cells/µl, respectively, for patients receiving LPV/r as first and second PI (P = 0.001), and 175 and 98, respectively, for subtypes B and C (P<0.001). Only 52 (22%) of 237 patients genotyped while under LPV/r were fully resistant to the drug; 12(5%) were partially resistant. In48%, population sequencing did not reveal resistance to any drug notwithstanding the virologic failure. No difference was found in the rates of resistance development between B and C (p = 0.16).
conclusionsTreatment with LPV/r appeared efficient and tolerable in both subtypes, B and C, but CD4 recovery was significantly better in virologically suppressed subtype-B patients. In both subtypes, LPV/r was more beneficial when given as first PI. Mostly, reasons other than resistance development caused discontinuation of treatment.
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.