Observational studyAntiviral therapy2015
Recent trends in early stage response to combination antiretroviral therapy in Australia.
Observational study in Antiviral therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Time trends in cancer incidence in Australian people living with HIV between 1982 and 2012.HIV medicine · 2022Article
- Changes in the incidence and prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in the South African medical schemes environment: 2005-2015.Southern African journal of HIV medicine · 2020Article
- National characteristics and trends in antiretroviral treatment in Australia can be accurately estimated using a large clinical cohort.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2018Article
- Temporal trends of time to antiretroviral treatment initiation, interruption and modification: examination of patients diagnosed with advanced HIV in Australia.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere have been improvements in combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) over the past 15 years. The aim of this analysis was to assess whether improvements in ART have resulted in improvements in surrogates of HIV outcome.
methodsPatients in the Australian HIV Observational Database who initiated treatment using mono/duo therapy prior to 1996, or using cART from 1996 onwards, were included in the analysis. Patients were stratified by era of ART initiation. Median changes in CD4(+) T-cell count and the proportion of patients with detectable HIV viral load (>400 copies/ml) were calculated over the first 4 years of treatment. Probabilities of treatment switch were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsA total of 2,753 patients were included in the analysis: 28% initiated treatment <1996 using mono/duo therapy and 72% initiated treatment ≥1996 using cART (30% 1996-1999, 12% 2000-2003, 11% 2004-2007 and 19% ≥2008). Overall CD4(+) T-cell count response improved by later era of initiation (P<0.001), although 2000-2003 CD4(+) T-cell count response was less than that for 1996-1999 (P=0.007). The average proportion with detectable viral load from 2 to 4 years post-treatment commencement by era was: <1996 mono/duo 0.69 (0.67-0.71), 1996-1999 cART 0.29 (0.28-0.30), 2000-2003 cART 0.22 (0.20-0.24), 2004-2007 cART 0.09 (0.07-0.10) and ≥2008 cART 0.04 (0.03-0.05). Probability of treatment switch at 4 years after initiation decreased from 53% in 1996-1999 to 29% after 2008 (P<0.001).
conclusionsAcross the five time-periods examined, there have been incremental improvements for patients initiated on cART, as measured by overall response (viral load and CD4(+) T-cell count) and also increased durability of first-line ART regimens.
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.