↓ Skip to main content

Choice of initial antiretroviral drugs and treatment outcomes among HIV-infected patients in sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Choice of initial antiretroviral drugs and treatment outcomes among HIV-infected patients in sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0567-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tadesse Awoke Ayele, Alemayehu Worku, Yigzaw Kebede, Kassahun Alemu, Adetayo Kasim, Ziv Shkedy

Abstract

The effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy (ART) depends on the choice of regimens during initiation. Most evidences from developed countries indicated that there is difference between efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP). However, the evidences are limited in resource poor countries particularly in Africa. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to summarize reported long-term treatment outcomes among people on first line therapy in sub-Saharan Africa. Observational studies that reported odds ratio, relative risk, hazard ratio, or standardized incidence ratio to compare risk of treatment failure among HIV/AIDS patients who initiated ART with EFV versus NVP were systematically searched. Searches were conducted using the MEDLINE database within PubMed, Google Scholar, HINARI, and Research Gates between 2007 and 2016. Information was extracted using standardized form. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effect, generic inverse variance method. A total of 6394 articles were identified, of which, 29 were eligible for review and abstraction in sub-Saharan Africa. Seventeen articles were used for the meta-analysis. Of a total of 121,092 independent study participants, 76,719 (63.36%) were females. Of these, 40,480 (33.43%) initiated with NVP containing regimen. Two studies did not report the median CD4 cell counts at initiation. Patients who have low CD4 cell counts initiated with EFV containing regimen. The pooled effect size indicated that treatment failure was reduced by 15%, 0.85 (95%CI: 0.75-0.98), and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) switch was reduced by 43%, 0.57 (95%CI: 0.37-0.89). The risk of treatment failure and NNRTI switch were lower in patients who initiated with EFV than NVP-containing regimen. The review suggests that initiation of patients with EFV-containing regimen will reduce treatment failure and NNRTI switch.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 26%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 21 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,844
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,790
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,759
of 316,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#40
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 316,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.