Trial reportPloS one2020
Immune recovery markers in a double blind clinical trial comparing dolutegravir and raltegravir based regimens as initial therapy (SPRING-2).
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple T-cell marker recovery (MTMR: CD4+ T-cells >500 cel/mm3 plus CD4+% >29% plus CD4+/CD8+ ratio >1) has been proposed as the most complete level of immune reconstitution. In this study we quantified differences in the CD4+/CD8+ ratio, CD4+% recovery and MTMR after starting HIV-1 treatment with dolutegravir (DTG) vs. raltegravir (RAL) plus a NRTI backbone.
methodsExploratory post-hoc analysis of the SPRING-2 study, a randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing DTG and RAL as third agents in naive HIV-infected patients at 100 sites in Canada, USA, Australia, and Europe. Percentage differences and corresponding precision based on 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values were calculated for i) CD4+/CD8+ ratio normalization, ii) CD4+% normalization, and iii) the achievement of MTMR.
resultsA total of 822 participants were analyzed (411 in each group). No statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients who reached a CD4+/CD8+ ratio ≥0.5 & ≥1 at w48 & w96 were observed. At w96, the proportion of patients with a CD4+/CD8+ ratio ≥1 was similar (30.43% DTG vs. 29.57% RAL). No differences were observed in the mean increase in CD4+/CD8+ ratio from baseline at both w48 & w96. Similarly, no significant differences in the CD4+/CD8+>29% were observed at w96 (72.95% DTG vs 69.28% RAL). The proportion of patients attaining MTMR criteria was also similar in the DTG group and the RAL group at w48 (20.33% vs. 18.26%; difference 2.07 (95%CI (-3.67;7.81) P = 0.481 and w96 (28.70% vs. 27.13; difference 1.56 (95%CI -5.22;8.34) P = 0.652).
conclusionAfter comparing DTG and RAL, no differences on immune recovery markers were observed.
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.