ArticlePharmacotherapy2022
Cumulative tenofovir diphosphate exposure in persons with HIV taking single- vs. multiple-tablet regimens.
Article in Pharmacotherapy, 2022. 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.
- Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Persons with HIV with Viral Load:Adherence Mismatch Who Are at Risk of Future Viremia.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2023Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe assessed cumulative antiretroviral exposure-using tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) in dried blood spots (DBS)-in persons with HIV (PWH) receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) as single-tablet regimens (STR) or multiple-tablet regimens (MTR).
methodsBlood for DBS was prospectively collected in PWH on TDF during 1144 person visits (n = 523). Linear mixed-effects models, adjusted for baseline characteristics, were used to compare TFV-DP in STR versus MTR. Models adjusted for ART regimen using either anchor drug class, pharmacokinetic booster status (unboosted [u/] or boosted [b/]), or a combined STR/MTR and booster categorical variable.
resultsIn the anchor class-adjusted model, STR had 19% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3%-37%; p = 0.02) higher TFV-DP concentrations than MTR. However, in the booster-adjusted model, STR was not significantly higher than MTR (estimate 5%, 95% CI: -9% to 21%; p = 0.48), although PWH on b/ART had 35% (95% CI: 16%-58%; p = 0.0001) higher TFV-DP than u/ART. In the STR/MTR-boosted variable model, when compared to u/MTR, b/STR, b/MTR, and u/STR had 25% (95% CI: 7%-47%; p = 0.005), 37% (95% CI: 17%-59%; p < 0.0001), and 7% (95% CI: -7% to 24%; p = 0.34) higher TFV-DP, respectively. Compared with b/MTR, b/STR had 9% (95% CI: -31% to 10%; p = 0.37) lower TFV-DP. In a sensitivity analysis of PWH with HIV viral load <20 copies/ml at all visits, b/STR and b/MTR had 34% (95% CI: 16%-55%; p < 0.0001) and 12% (95% CI: -2% to 27%; p = 0.09) higher TFV-DP, respectively, compared with u/MTR, while u/STR had 4% (95% CI: -15% to 8%; p = 0.50) lower TFV-DP. Compared with b/MTR, b/STR had 17% (95% CI: 2%-30%; p = 0.03) higher TFV-DP.
conclusionsPersons with HIV on b/TDF-based ART had higher TFV-DP than u/ART, regardless of STR or MTR use. No significant differences in TFV-DP between regimens of the same boosting status (i.e., b/STR vs. b/MTR; u/STR vs. u/MTR) were observed in the full cohort. Future research should examine the clinical utility of these findings in patient-tailored ART selection.
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.