ArticleJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2016
Brief Report: Virologic Monitoring Can Be a Cost-Effective Strategy to Diagnose Treatment Failure on First-Line ART.
Article in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Second-line HIV treatment failure in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Supportive interventions to improve retention on ART in people with HIV in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of routine viral load monitoring in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2017Pooled it
- A targeted approach for routine viral load monitoring in Malawian adults on antiretroviral therapy.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2018Article
- Digital physiotherapy is a satisfactory and effective method to improve the quality of life in Long COVID patients.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
CD4 count testing is perceived to be an affordable strategy to diagnose treatment failure on first-line antiretroviral therapy. We hypothesize that the superior accuracy of viral load (VL) testing will result in less patients being incorrectly switched to more expensive and toxic second-line regimens. Using data from a drug resistance cohort, we show that CD4 testing is approximately double the cost to make 1 correct regimen switch under certain diagnostic thresholds (CD4 = US $499 vs. VL = US $186 or CD4 = US $3031 vs. VL = US $1828). In line with World Health Organization guidelines, our findings show that VL testing can be both an accurate and cost-effective treatment monitoring strategy.
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.