↓ Skip to main content

Landscape review of current HIV ‘kick and kill’ cure research - some kicking, not enough killing

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Landscape review of current HIV ‘kick and kill’ cure research - some kicking, not enough killing
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2683-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristian Thorlund, Marc S. Horwitz, Brian T. Fife, Richard Lester, D. William Cameron

Abstract

Current antiretroviral therapy (ART) used to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients is life-long because it only suppresses de novo infections. Recent efforts to eliminate HIV have tested the ability of a number of agents to reactivate ('Kick') the well-known latent reservoir. This approach is rooted in the assumption that once these cells are reactivated the host's immune system itself will eliminate ('Kill') the virus. While many agents have been shown to reactivate large quantities of the latent reservoir, the impact on the size of the latent reservoir has been negligible. This suggests that the immune system is not sufficient to eliminate reactivated reservoirs. Thus, there is a need for more emphasis on 'kill' strategies in HIV cure research, and how these might work in combination with current or future kick strategies. We conducted a landscape review of HIV 'cure' clinical trials using 'kick and kill' approaches. We identified and reviewed current available clinical trial results in human participants as well as ongoing and planned clinical trials. We dichotomized trials by whether they did not include or include a 'kill' agent. We extracted potential reasons why the 'kill' is missing from current 'kick and kill' strategies. We subsequently summarized and reviewed current 'kill' strategies have entered the phase of clinical trial testing in human participants and highlighted those with the greatest promise. The identified 'kick' trials only showed promise on surrogate measures activating latent T-cells, but did not show any positive effects on clinical 'cure' measures. Of the 'kill' agents currently being tested in clinical trials, early results have shown small but meaningful proportions of participants remaining off ART for several months with broadly neutralizing antibodies, as well as agents for regulating immune cell responses. A similar result was also recently observed in a trial combining a conventional 'kick' with a vaccine immune booster ('kill'). While an understanding of the efficacy of each individual component is crucial, no single 'kick' or 'kill' agent is likely to be a fully effective cure. Rather, the solution is likely found in a combination of multiple 'kick and kill' interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Researcher 12 9%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 37 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 20 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 41 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,770,955
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,550
of 7,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,955
of 317,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#20
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
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 317,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.