Trial reportPloS one2020
Virologic and immunologic outcomes of treatment with integrase inhibitors in a real-world setting: The RESPOND cohort consortium.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and immunovirological status in children, adolescents and young adults with early-life-acquired HIV: a Spanish multi-cohort analysis since 2020.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026Article
- Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitor-Related Changes in Body Mass Index and Risk of Diabetes: A Prospective Study From the RESPOND Cohort Consortium.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025Article
- Cross-sectional HIV and HCV cascades of care across the regions of Ukraine between 2019 and 2020: findings from the CARE cohort.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2023Article
- Cardiovascular events in delayed presentation of HIV: the prospective PISCIS cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Comparative Safety and Changes in Immunologic and Virologic Parameters of Dolutegravir versus Efavirenz-Based Antiretroviral Therapies Among HIV Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Determinants of long-term survival in late HIV presenters: The prospective PISCIS cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
- Incidence of hypertension in people with HIV who are treated with integrase inhibitors versus other antiretroviral regimens in the RESPOND cohort consortium.HIV medicine · 2022Article
- A retrospective clinical study of dolutegravir- versus efavirenz-based regimen in treatment-naïve patients with advanced HIV infection in Nanjing, China.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors at 20 institutions in 14 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare virologic and immunologic outcomes of integrase inhibitor (INSTI)-containing, contemporary boosted protease inhibitor (PI/b)-containing and non-nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-containing regimens in a real-life setting.
methodsUsing logistic regression, virologic and immunologic outcomes of INSTI use were compared to outcomes of PI/b or NNRTI treatment 12 months after treatment start or switch, for participants in the RESPOND cohort consortium. A composite treatment outcome (cTO) was used, defining success as viral load (VL) <200 copies/mL and failure as at least one of: VL ≥200 copies/mL, unknown VL in the time window, any changes of antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen, AIDS, or death. In addition, on-treatment analysis including only individuals with known VL and no regimen changes was performed. Favorable immunologic response was defined as a 25% increase in CD4 count or as reaching ≥750 CD4 cells/μL.
resultsBetween January 2012 and January 2019, 13,703 (33.0% ART-naïve) individuals were included, of whom 7,147 started/switched to a regimen with an INSTI, 3,102 to a PI/b and 3,454 to an NNRTI-containing regimen. The main reason for cTO failure in all treatment groups were changes in ART regimen. Compared to INSTIs, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of cTO success was significantly lower for PI/b (0.74 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.67-0.82], p <0.001), but similar for NNRTIs (1.07 [CI 0.97-1.17], p = 0.11). On-treatment analysis and sensitivity analyses using a VL cut-off of 50 copies/mL were consistent. Compared to INSTIs, the aORs of a 25% increase in CD4 count were lower for NNRTIs (0.80 [CI 0.71-0.91], p<0.001) and PI/b (0.87 [CI 0.76-0.99], p = 0.04).
conclusionIn this large analysis of a real-world population, cTO and on-treatment success were similar between INSTIs and NNRTIs, but lower for PI/b, though residual confounding cannot be fully excluded. Obtaining favorable immunologic outcomes were more likely for INSTIs than the other drug classes.
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.