ArticlePloS one2017
Effect of therapy switch on time to second-line antiretroviral treatment failure in HIV-infected patients.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Second-line HIV treatment failure in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Rate of Viral Re-Suppression and Retention to Care Among PLHIV on Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy at Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Northeast Ethiopia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSwitch from first line antiretroviral therapy (ART) to second-line ART is common in clinical practice. However, there is limited knowledge of to which extent different reason for therapy switch are associated with differences in long-term consequences and sustainability of the second line ART. MATERIAL AND
methodsData from 869 patients with 14601 clinical visits between 1999-2014 were derived from the national cohort database. Reason for therapy switch and viral load (VL) levels at first-line ART failure were compared with regard to outcome of second line ART. Using the Laplace regression model we analyzed the median, 10th, 20th, 30th and 40th percentile of time to viral failure (VF).
resultsMost patients (n = 495; 57.0%) switched from first-line to second-line ART without VF. Patients switching due to detectable VL with (n = 124; 14.2%) or without drug resistance mutations (DRM) (n = 250; 28.8%) experienced VF to their second line regimen sooner (median time, years: 3.43 (95% CI 2.90-3.96) and 3.20 (95% 2.65-3.75), respectively) compared with those who switched without VF (4.53 years). Furthermore level of VL at first-line ART failure had a significant impact on failure of second-line ART starting after 2.5 years of second-line ART.
conclusionsIn the context of life-long therapy, a median time on second line ART of 4.53 years for these patients is short. To prolong time on second-line ART, further studies are needed on the reasons for therapy changes. Additionally patients with a high VL at first-line VF should be more frequently monitored the period after the therapy switch.
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.