ArticlePloS one2020
Effectiveness of four antiretroviral regimens for treating people living with HIV.
Article 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.
- Predictors of Mortality Among Adult HIV-Infected Patients Taking Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) in Harari Hospitals, Ethiopia.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare 4 different ARV regimens in a clinical cohort in Brazil, with regard to the virologic and immunologic responses, clinical failure and reasons for changing. To compare the virologic response and clinical failure between groups we used the Cox and Kaplan Meier proportional hazard models. To analyze the immunologic outcome, we used multilevel GLLAMM and mixed effect linear regression models. To compare regimen change outcomes we used the Pearson's chi-square test. We included 840 participants distributed across the groups according to the initial ART regimen. The mean follow-up period was 27.8 months. Almost half the sample initiated ART with AIDS-related signs/symptoms. Virologic response was effective in 79.6% of participants within 12 months. The tenofovir/lamivudine/efavirenz group presented a higher proportion of virologic response (VL<50 at 6 months) when compared to the zidovudine/lamivudine/efavirenz group. There was no difference between the regimens regarding the immunologic response. A total of 17.3% of individuals changed regimen because of failure and 46.5% due to adverse events. Changes due to adverse events were more frequent in the group using zidovudine/lamivudine/efavirenz. The proportion of hospitalizations at 1 year was higher in the zidovudine/lamivudine/efavirenz group when compared to the tenofovir/lamivudine/efavirenz group. The effectiveness outcomes between the regimens were similar. Some differences may be due to the individual characteristics of patients, toxicity and acceptability of drugs. Studies are needed that compare similarly effective regimens and their respective treatment costs and financial impacts on SUS (Integrated Healthcare System).
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.