ArticleTrials2021
Per-protocol analysis of the ZINC trial for HIV disease among alcohol users.
Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01934803 (Zinc for HIV Disease Among Alcohol Users - an RCT in the Russia ARCH Cohort), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Zinc for HIV Disease Among Alcohol Users - an RCT in the Russia ARCH Cohort
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Machine Learning to Estimate the Per-Protocol Effect of Low-Dose Aspirin on Pregnancy Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Zinc in Human Health and Infectious Diseases.Biomolecules · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Zinc for INflammation and Chronic disease in HIV (ZINC) trial randomized person who live with HIV (PLWH) who engage in heavy drinking to either daily zinc supplementation or placebo. The primary outcome was change in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS) index, a predictor of mortality, between baseline and 18 months. Because adherence and follow-up were suboptimal, the intention-to-treat analysis, which was not statistically significant, may have underestimated the effect of the zinc supplementation.
objectiveWe estimated the per-protocol effect of zinc versus placebo in the ZINC trial (i.e., the effect that would have been observed if all participants had had high adherence and none was lost to follow-up).
methodsAdherence was measured as the self-reported percentage of pills taken in the previous 6 weeks and assessed at all post-baseline visits. We used inverse probability weighting to estimate and compare the change in the VACS index at 18 months in the zinc and placebo groups, had all the trial participants had high adherence (i.e., cumulative adherence ≥80% at 18 months). To examine trends by level of adherence, we rerun the analyses using thresholds for high adherence of 70% and 90% of average self-reported pill coverage.
resultsThe estimated (95% confidence interval) change in the VACS index was - 2.16 (- 8.07, 3.59) and 5.84 (0.73, 11.80) under high adherence and no loss to follow-up in the zinc and placebo groups, respectively. The per-protocol effect estimate of the mean difference in the change between the zinc and placebo groups was - 8.01 (- 16.42, 0.01), somewhat larger than the intention-to-treat effect difference in change (- 4.68 (- 9.62, 0.25)), but it was still not statistically significant. The mean difference in the change between individuals in the zinc and placebo groups was - 4.07 (- 11.5, 2.75) and -12.34 (- 20.14, -4.14) for high adherence defined as 70% and 90% of pill coverage, respectively.
conclusionsOverall, high adherence to zinc was associated with a lower VACS score, but confidence intervals were wide and crossed 0. Further studies with a larger sample size are needed to quantify the benefits of zinc supplementation in this population.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01934803 . Registered on August 30, 2013.
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.