ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
Adoption of evidence-informed guidelines in prescribing protease inhibitors for HIV-Tuberculosis co-infected patients on rifampicin and effects on HIV treatment outcomes in Uganda.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. 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, 1 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to determine how emerging evidence over the past decade informed how Ugandan HIV clinicians prescribed protease inhibitors (PIs) in HIV patients on rifampicin-based tuberculosis (TB) treatment and how this affected HIV treatment outcomes.
methodsWe reviewed clinical records of HIV patients aged 13 years and above, treated with rifampicin-based TB treatment while on PIs between1st-January -2013 and 30th-September-2018 from twelve public HIV clinics in Uganda. Appropriate PI prescription during rifampicin-based TB treatment was defined as; prescribing doubled dose lopinavir/ritonavir- (LPV/r 800/200 mg twice daily) and inappropriate PI prescription as prescribing standard dose LPV/r or atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r).
resultsOf the 602 patients who were on both PIs and rifampicin, 103 patients (17.1% (95% CI: 14.3-20.34)) received an appropriate PI prescription. There were no significant differences in the two-year mortality (4.8 vs. 5.7%, P = 0.318), loss to follow up (23.8 vs. 18.9%, P = 0.318) and one-year post TB treatment virologic failure rates (31.6 vs. 30.7%, P = 0.471) between patients that had an appropriate PI prescription and those that did not. However, more patients on double dose LPV/r had missed anti-retroviral therapy (ART) days (35.9 vs 21%, P = 0.001).
conclusionWe conclude that despite availability of clinical evidence, double dosing LPV/r in patients receiving rifampicin-based TB treatment is low in Uganda's public HIV clinics but this does not seem to affect patient survival and viral suppression.
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.