Trial reportHIV clinical trials2015
Regimen selection in the OPTIONS trial of HIV salvage therapy: drug resistance, prior therapy, and race-ethnicity determine the degree of regimen complexity.
Trial report in HIV clinical trials, 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term Outcomes in a Large Randomized Trial of HIV-1 Salvage Therapy: 96-Week Results of AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5241 (OPTIONS).The Journal of infectious diseases · 2020Trial
- HIV Salvage Therapy Does Not Require Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2015Trial
- Outcomes for persons with triple-class resistant HIV and a history of virologic failure.International journal of antimicrobial agents · 2026Article
- Training Internal Medicine Residents to Provide Care and Treatment for Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1-Infected Patients.Open forum infectious diseases · 2019Article
- A dual regimen of ritonavir/darunavir plus dolutegravir for rescue or simplification of rescue therapy: 48 weeks' observational data.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRegimen selection for highly treatment-experienced patients is complicated.
methodsUsing a web-based utility, study team members reviewed antiretroviral (ARV) history and resistance data and recommended individual ARV regimens and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) options for treatment-experienced participants consisting of 3-4 of the following agents: raltegravir (RAL), darunavir (DRV)/ritonavir, tipranavir (TPV)/ritonavir, etravirine (ETR), maraviroc (MVC), and enfuvirtide (ENF). We evaluated team recommendations and site selection of regimen and NRTIs. Associations between baseline factors and the selection of a complex regimen (defined as including four ARV agents or ENF) were explored with logistic regression.
resultsA total of 413 participants entered the study. Participants initiated the first or second recommended regimen 86% of the time and 21% of participants started a complex regimen. In a multivariable model, ARV resistance to NRTI (odds ratio [OR] = 2.2), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI, OR = 6.2) or boosted protease inhibitor (PI, OR = 6.6), prior use of integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI, OR = 25), and race-ethnicity (all P ≤ 0.01) were associated with selection of a complex regimen. Black non-Hispanic (OR = 0.5) and Hispanic participants from the continental US (OR = 0.2) were less likely to start a complex regimen, compared to white non-Hispanics.
conclusionsIn this multi-center trial, we developed a web-based utility that facilitated treatment recommendations for highly treatment-experienced patients. Drug resistance, prior INSTI use, and race-ethnicity were key factors in decisions to select a more complex 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.