Trial reportBMJ open2017
Qualitative study of the BREATHER trial (Short Cycle antiretroviral therapy): is it acceptable to young people living with HIV?
Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Adolescent Anti-Retroviral Therapy Use in the BREATHER-Plus Trial: Qualitative Findings From South Africa and Uganda.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2026Trial
- Economic evaluation of weekends-off antiretroviral therapy for young people in 11 countries.Medicine · 2018Trial
- Trial
- The HIV drug optimization agenda: promoting standards for earlier investigation and approvals of antiretroviral drugs for use in adolescents living with HIV.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2020Article
- Qualitative research on community experiences in large HIV research trials: what have we learned?Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2018Article
- Nothing About Us Without RIGHTS-Meaningful Engagement of Children and Youth: From Research Prioritization to Clinical Trials, Implementation Science, and Policy.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2018Article
- Time to Switch to Second-line Antiretroviral Therapy in Children With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Europe and Thailand.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2018Observational
- Barriers and facilitators to antiretroviral therapy adherence among Peruvian adolescents living with HIV: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2018Article
- "How Do We Start? And How Will They React?" Disclosing to Young People with Perinatally Acquired HIV in Uganda.Frontiers in public health · 2017Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesA qualitative study of the BREATHER (PENTA 16) randomised clinical trial, which compared virological control of Short Cycle Therapy (SCT) (5 days on: 2 days off) with continuous efavirenz (EFV)-based antiretroviral therapy (CT) in children and young people (aged 8-24) living with HIV with viral load <50 c/mL to examine adaptation, acceptability and experience of SCT to inform intervention development.
settingPaediatric HIV clinics in the UK (2), Ireland (1), the USA (1) and Uganda (1).
participantsAll BREATHER trial participants who were over the age of 10 and aware of their HIV diagnosis were invited to participate. 49 young people from both arms of the BREATHER trial (31 females and 18 males; 40% of the total trial population in the respective sites; age range 11-24) gave additional consent to participate in the qualitative study.
resultsYoung people from both trial arms had initial concerns about the impact of SCT on their health and adherence, but these decreased over the early months in the trial. Young people randomised to SCT reported preference for SCT compared with CT pre-trial. Attitudes to SCT did not vary greatly by gender or country. Once short-term adaptation challenges were overcome, SCT was positively described as reducing impact of side effects, easing the pressure to carry and remember medication and enabling more weekend social activities. Young people on both arms reported frequent medication side effects and occasional missed doses that they had rarely voiced to clinical staff. Participants liked SCT by trial end but were concerned that peers who had most problems adhering could find SCT disruptive and difficult to manage.
conclusionsTo realise the potential of SCT (and mitigate possible risks of longer interruptions), careful dissemination and communication post-trial is needed. SCT should be provided alongside a package of monitoring, support and education over 3 months to allow adaptation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT 01641016.
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.