Trial reportAIDS (London, England)2016
Differential CD4+ cell count increase and CD4+ : CD8+ ratio normalization with maraviroc compared with tenofovir.
Trial report in AIDS (London, England), 2016. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antiretroviral Therapy Intensification for Neurocognitive Impairment in Human Immunodeficiency Virus.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Trial
- Effects of Maraviroc versus Efavirenz in Combination with Zidovudine-Lamivudine on the CD4/CD8 Ratio in Treatment-Naive HIV-Infected Individuals.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2017Trial
- Vitamin D does not modulate immune-mediated bone loss during ART initiation.Antiviral therapy · 2019Article
- Inflammation, Immune Activation, and Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2017Review
- High Virologic Failure Rates with Maraviroc-Based Salvage Regimens Among Indian Patients: A Preliminary Analysis-Maraviroc Effectiveness in HIV-1 Subtype C.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS CareArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveStudies exploring the immunologic effects of maraviroc (MVC) have produced mixed results; hence, it remains unclear whether MVC has unique immunologic effects in comparison with other antiretroviral drugs. We sought to determine whether MVC has differential effects compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) during initial antiretroviral therapy.
designProspective study in AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5303, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (N = 262) of MVC vs. TDF, each combined with boosted darunavir and emtricitabine.
methodsA total of 31 cellular and soluble biomarkers were assayed at weeks 0 and 48. Polychromatic flow cytometry was performed on cryopreserved peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Soluble markers were assayed in plasma using ELISA kits. Analyses were as treated.
resultsAnalyses included 230 participants (119 in MVC arm and 111 in TDF arm). Over 48 weeks of treatment, no significant differences were detected in declines in markers of inflammation and activation with MVC vs. TDF. A greater CD4 T-cell count increase (median +234 vs. +188 cells/μl, P = 0.036), a smaller CD8 T-cell count decrease (-6 vs. -109 cells/μl, P = 0.008), and a smaller CD4 : CD8 ratio increase (0.26 vs. 0.39, P = 0.003) occurred with MVC. Among participants with a baseline CD4 : CD8 ratio less than 1, a smaller proportion of MVC group normalized to a ratio greater than 1 at week 48 (15 and 36%, P < 0.001).
conclusionMVC resulted in less improvement in the CD4 : CD8 ratio driven by greater increase in CD4 cell count but smaller decline in CD8 cell count. Changes in soluble or cellular biomarkers of inflammation and immune activation were not different between MVC and TDF.
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.