↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of atazanavir/ritonavir and darunavir/ritonavir based antiretroviral therapy for antiretroviral naïve patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of atazanavir/ritonavir and darunavir/ritonavir based antiretroviral therapy for antiretroviral naïve patients
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2379-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tony Antoniou, Leah Szadkowski, Sharon Walmsley, Curtis Cooper, Ann N. Burchell, Ahmed M. Bayoumi, Julio S. G. Montaner, Mona Loutfy, Marina B. Klein, Nima Machouf, Christos Tsoukas, Alexander Wong, Robert S. Hogg, Janet Raboud, The Canadian Observational Cohort (CANOC) collaboration

Abstract

Atazanavir/ritonavir and darunavir/ritonavir are common protease inhibitor-based regimens for treating patients with HIV. Studies comparing these drugs in clinical practice are lacking. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of antiretroviral naïve participants in the Canadian Observational Cohort (CANOC) collaboration initiating atazanavir/ritonavir- or darunavir/ritonavir-based treatment. We used separate Fine and Gray competing risk regression models to compare times to regimen failure (composite of virologic failure or discontinuation for any reason). Additional endpoints included virologic failure, discontinuation due to virologic failure, discontinuation for other reasons, and virologic suppression. We studied 222 patients treated with darunavir/ritonavir and 1791 patients treated with atazanavir/ritonavir. Following multivariable adjustment, there was no difference between darunavir/ritonavir and atazanavir-ritonavir in the risk of regimen failure (adjusted hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.03) Darunavir/ritonavir-treated patients were at lower risk of virologic failure relative to atazanavir/ritonavir treated patients (aHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.91), findings driven largely by high rates of virologic failure among atazanavir/ritonavir-treated patients in the province of British Columbia. Of 108 discontinuations due to virologic failure, all occurred in patients starting atazanavir/ritonavir. There was no difference between regimens in time to discontinuation for reasons other than virologic failure (aHR 0.93; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33) or virologic suppression (aHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.21). The risk of regimen failure was similar between patients treated with darunavir/ritonavir and atazanavir/ritonavir. Although darunavir/ritonavir was associated with a lower risk of virologic failure relative to atazanavir/ritonavir, this difference varied substantially by Canadian province and likely reflects regional variation in prescribing practices and patient characteristics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 19%
Student > Master 5 19%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,929,731
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,126
of 7,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,773
of 310,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#104
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.