ArticleJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2018
Brief Report: Assessing the Association Between Changing NRTIs When Initiating Second-Line ART and Treatment Outcomes.
Article in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2018. 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.
- 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAfter first-line antiretroviral therapy failure, the importance of change in nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) in second line is uncertain due to the high potency of protease inhibitors used in second line.
settingWe used clinical data from 6290 adult patients in South Africa and Zambia from the International Epidemiologic Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) Southern Africa cohort.
methodsWe included patients who initiated on standard first-line antiretroviral therapy and had evidence of first-line failure. We used propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional-hazards models to evaluate the impact of change in NRTI on second-line failure compared with remaining on the same NRTI in second line. In South Africa, where viral load monitoring was available, treatment failure was defined as 2 consecutive viral loads >1000 copies/mL. In Zambia, it was defined as 2 consecutive CD4 counts <100 cells/mm.
resultsAmong patients in South Africa initiated on zidovudine (AZT), the adjusted hazard ratio for second-line virologic failure was 0.25 (95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.57) for those switching to tenofovir (TDF) vs. remaining on AZT. Among patients in South Africa initiated on TDF, switching to AZT in second line was associated with reduced second-line failure (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.35 [95% confidence interval: 0.13 to 0.96]). In Zambia, where viral load monitoring was not available, results were less conclusive.
conclusionsChanging NRTI in second line was associated with better clinical outcomes in South Africa. Additional clinical trial research regarding second-line NRTI choices for patients initiated on TDF or with contraindications to specific NRTIs is needed.
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.