ArticleGlobal health action2017
Development of an algorithm for determination of the likelihood of virological failure in HIV-positive adults receiving antiretroviral therapy in decentralized care.
Article in Global health action, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly identification of virological failure (VF) limits occurrence and spread of drug-resistant viruses in patients receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART). Viral load (VL) monitoring is therefore recommended, but capacities to comply with this are insufficient in many low-income countries. Clinical algorithms might identify persons at higher likelihood of VF to allocate VL resources.
objectivesWe aimed to construct a VF algorithm (the Viral Load Testing Criteria; VLTC) and compare its performance to the 2013 WHO treatment failure criteria.
methodsSubjects with VL results available 1 year after ART start (n = 494) were identified from a cohort of ART-naïve adults (n = 812), prospectively recruited and followed 2011-2015 at Ethiopian health centres. VF was defined as VL≥1000 copies/mL. Variables recorded at the time of sampling, with potential association with VF, were used to construct the algorithm based on multivariate logistic regression.
resultsFifty-seven individuals (12%) had VF, which was independently associated with CD4 count <350 cells/mm
conclusionsThe VLTC identified subjects at greater likelihood of VF, with higher sensitivity and NPV than the WHO criteria. If external validation confirms this performance, these criteria could be used to allocate limited VL resources. Due to its limited specificity, it cannot be used to determine treatment failure in the absence of a confirmatory viral load.
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.