ArticlePloS one2015
Combining the Estimated Date of HIV Infection with a Phylogenetic Cluster Study to Better Understand HIV Spread: Application in a Paris Neighbourhood.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Defining HIV-1 transmission clusters based on sequence data.AIDS (London, England) · 2017Pooled it
- Exploring HIV-1 Transmission Dynamics by Combining Phylogenetic Analysis and Infection Timing.Viruses · 2019Article
- In-depth Sampling of High-risk Populations to Characterize HIV Transmission Epidemics Among Young MSM Using PrEP in France and Quebec.Open forum infectious diseases · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo relate socio-demographic and virological information to phylogenetic clustering in HIV infected patients in a limited geographical area and to evaluate the role of recently infected individuals in the spread of HIV.
methodsHIV-1 pol sequences from newly diagnosed and treatment-naive patients receiving follow-up between 2008 and 2011 by physicians belonging to a health network in Paris were used to build a phylogenetic tree using neighbour-joining analysis. Time since infection was estimated by immunoassay to define recently infected patients (very early infected presenters, VEP). Data on socio-demographic, clinical and biological features in clustered and non-clustered patients were compared. Chains of infection structure was also analysed.
results547 patients were included, 49 chains of infection containing 108 (20%) patients were identified by phylogenetic analysis. analysis. Eighty individuals formed pairs and 28 individuals were belonging to larger clusters. The median time between two successive HIV diagnoses in the same chain of infection was 248 days [CI = 176-320]. 34.7% of individuals were considered as VEP, and 27% of them were included in chains of infection. Multivariable analysis showed that belonging to a cluster was more frequent in VEP and those under 30 years old (OR: 3.65, 95 CI 1.49-8.95, p = 0.005 and OR: 2.42, 95% CI 1.05-5.85, p = 0.04 respectively). The prevalence of drug resistance was not associated with belonging to a pair or a cluster. Within chains, VEP were not grouped together more than chance predicted (p = 0.97).
conclusionsMost newly diagnosed patients did not belong to a chain of infection, confirming the importance of undiagnosed or untreated HIV infected individuals in transmission. Furthermore, clusters involving both recently infected individuals and longstanding infected individuals support a substantial role in transmission of the latter before diagnosis.
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.