Trial reportBMC public health2017
Is laboratory screening prior to antiretroviral treatment useful in Johannesburg, South Africa? Baseline findings of a clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Renal function in Ethiopian HIV-positive adults on antiretroviral treatment with and without tenofovir.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Use of pre-ART laboratory screening to identify renal, hepatic and haematological abnormalities in Côte d'Ivoire.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2020Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScreening for renal, hepatic and haematological disorders complicates the initiation of current first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART). Each additional test done adds substantial costs, both through direct laboratory expenses, but also by increasing the burden on health workers and patients. Evaluating the prevalence of clinically relevant abnormalities in different population groups could guide decisions about what tests to recommend in national guidelines, or in local adaptations of these.
methodsAs part of enrolment procedures in a clinical trial, 771 HIV-positive adults, predominantly from inner-city primary health care clinics, underwent laboratory screening prior to ART. Participants had to be eligible for ART, based on the then CD4 eligibility threshold of 350 cells/μL, antiretroviral naïve and have no symptoms of peripheral neuropathy.
resultsParticipants were mostly female (57%) and a mean 34 years old. Creatinine clearance rates were almost all above 50 mL/min (99%), although 5% had microalbuminuria. Hepatitis B antigenaemia was common (8% of participants), of whom 40% had a raised AST/ALT, though only 2 had transaminase levels above 200 IU/L. Only 2% of participants had severe anaemia (haemoglobin <8 g/dl) and 1% neutropaenia (neutrophils <0.75 × 10^9/L). Costs per case detected of hepatitis B infection was USD135, but more than USD800 for a raised creatinine.
conclusionsHepatitis B continues to be a common co-infection in HIV-infected adults, and adds complexity to management of ART switches involving tenofovir. Routine renal and haematological screening prior to ART detected few abnormalities. The use of these screening tests should be assessed among patients with higher CD4 counts, who may even have fewer abnormalities. Formal evaluation of cost-effectiveness of laboratory screening prior to ART is warranted.
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.