Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26794907›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Views of Medical Doctors Regarding the 2013 WHO Adult HIV Treatment Guidelines Indicate Variable Applicability for Routine Patient Monitoring, for Their Family Members and for Themselves, in South-Africa.

Willem Daniel Francois Venter, Lee Fairlie, Charles Feldman, Peter Cleaton-Jones, Matthew Chersich

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Willem Daniel Francois VenterWits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute (RHI), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Lee FairlieWits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute (RHI), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Charles FeldmanDivision of Pulmonology, Department of Internal Medicine, Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Peter Cleaton-JonesSteve Biko Centre for Bioethics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Matthew ChersichWits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute (RHI), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
University of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

PEPFAR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

South African doctors (n = 211) experienced in antiretroviral therapy use were asked via an online questionnaire about the WHO 2013 adult antiretroviral integrated guidelines, as well as clinical and personal issues, in three hypothetical scenarios: directing the Minister of Health, advising a family member requiring therapy amidst unstable antiretroviral supplies, and where doctors themselves were HIV-positive. Doctors (54%) favoured the 500 cells/μl WHO initiation threshold if advising the Minister; a third recommended retaining the 350 cells/μl threshold used at the time of the survey. However, they favoured a higher initiation threshold for their family member. Doctors were 4.9 fold more likely to initiate modern treatment, irrespective of their CD4 cell count, for themselves than for public-sector patients (95%CI odds ratio = 3.33-7.33; P<0.001, although lower if limited to stavudine-containing regimens. Doctors were equally concerned about stavudine-induced lactic acidosis and lipoatrophy. The majority (84%) would use WHO-recommended first-line therapy, with concerns split between tenofovir-induced nephrotoxicity (55%), and efavirenz central nervous system effects (29%). A majority (61%), if HIV-positive, would pay for a pre-initiation resistance test, use influenza-prophylaxis (85%), but not INH-prophylaxis (61%), and treat their cholesterol and blood pressure concerns conventionally (63% and 60%). Over 60% wanted viral loads and creatinine measured six monthly. A third felt CD4 monitoring only necessary if clinically indicated or if virological failure occurred. They would use barrier prevention (83%), but not recommend pre-exposure prophylaxis, if their sexual partner was HIV-negative (68%). A minority would be completely open about their HIV status, but the majority would disclose to their sexual partners, close family and friends. Respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of continued antiretrovirals after breastfeeding. In conclusion, doctors largely supported adult WHO guidelines as public policy, although would initiate treatment at higher CD4 counts for their family and themselves. Resistance to INH-prophylaxis is unexpected and warrants investigation.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPhysiciansPractice Guidelines as TopicAdultAnti-HIV AgentsAntiretroviral Therapy, Highly ActiveFamilyHIV InfectionsHumansMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicPre-Exposure ProphylaxisSouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesViral LoadWorld Health OrganizationAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID26794907
PMCPMC4721595
OpenAlexW2412098184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.