Observational studyInfection2015
Darunavir-based dual therapy of treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients: analysis from a national multicenter database.
Observational study in Infection, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-life study of dual therapy based on dolutegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir in HIV-1-infected treatment-experienced patients.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
- Switching to boosted protease inhibitor plus a second antiretroviral drug (dual therapy) for treatment simplification: a multicenter observational study.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe assessed the virological response of dual therapy with DRV/r, plus raltegravir, maraviroc or etravirine, in virological failure patients and in virologically suppressed patients collected in the Italian Antiretroviral Resistance Database (ARCA). MATERIAL AND
methodsThe primary endpoint was the percentage of patients remaining free of virological failure (confirmed >50 copies/mL or any change in the regimen). Subjects had a resistance test and at least one follow-up visit. Observation was censored at last visit under dual therapy and survival analysis and proportional hazard models were used.
resultsSixty-seven percent of the 221 patients started DRV/r with RAL, 20.4 % with ETV, and 12.2 % with MAR; 31.2 % virological failures were observed. At survival analysis, the overall proportion of failure was 29.2 % at 1 year and 33.8 % at 2 years. The proportion of failure was lower in patients starting with undetectable vs. detectable viral load (13.3 and 25.2 % vs. 37.4 and 38.8 % at 1 and 2 years, respectively, p = 0.001 for both analyses) and in patients treated with DRV 600 BID vs. 800 QD (HR: 0.56, 95 % CI: 0.31-0.99, p < 0.05). By regimen, the adjusted proportional model showed no significant difference among the three regimens. A significant lower risk of failure was associated with higher GSS (HIV-DB HR: 0.53, 95 % CI: 0.32-0.88, p = 0.014; Rega 0.60, 0.40-0.88, p < 0.01; ANRS 0.55, 0.34-0.90, p = 0.017), while a higher risk of failure with detectable HIV-RNA (3.02, 1.70-5.72, p < 0.001).
conclusionsAmong experienced patients, the best candidates for dual-therapy regimens including DRV/r are those with undetectable viral load and higher GSS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25821204What 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.