ArticlePloS one2021
Long term dual antiretroviral therapy: A real life retrospective countrywide Israeli study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimCombined antiretroviral treatment (cART) traditionally consists of three antiretroviral medications, while two-drug regimens (2DR), historically used infrequently, recently been suggested to be non-inferior to three-drug regimens, is emerging as a potential treatment option and is currently a recommended option for treatment initiation in many guidelines. PURPOSE: Characterize the indications and clinical efficacy of 2DR use at a real-life setting in a nation-wide survey.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of Israeli patients treated by 2DR until July 2019, included demographic, immunologic, virologic, genotypic and biochemical/metabolic parameters at diagnosis, ART initiation, 2DR initiation and following 24, 48, 96 and 144 weeks of 2DR treatment.
results176 patients were included in the study. In contrast to historical data implicating ART resistance and adverse effects as the major reasons leading to 2DR switching, treatment simplification was the main reason leading to 2DR treatment in 2019. 2DR that included INSTI and PI were more commonly used in cases of drug resistance, while a combination of INSTI and NNRTI was used in all other 2DR indications. A switch to 2DR induced a mean CD4 T cell increase from 599 cells/μl at treatment initiation to 680 cells/μl at 96 weeks of treatment p<0.001 and viral suppression improvement from 73.9% at initiation to 87.0% at 48 weeks of treatment (p = 0.004). PI and INSTI 2DR was inferior in suppressing viral levels compared to other 2DRs but used for subset of more complex patients.
conclusions2DR in a large-scale real-life nation-wide survey proved to be safe and effective. Most 2DRs, other than PI and INSTI, were similarly effective in suppressing HIV viremia and in elevating CD4 T cell counts.
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.