↓ Skip to main content

Nevirapine- versus Efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV and Tuberculosis infections in India: a multi-centre study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Nevirapine- versus Efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV and Tuberculosis infections in India: a multi-centre study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2864-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanjeev Sinha, Kartik Gupta, Srikanth Tripathy, Sahajal Dhooria, Sanjay Ranjan, R. M. Pandey

Abstract

According to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, which have also been adopted by the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO), India, Efavirenz-based Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) is better in Human-Immunodeficiency-Virus (HIV)-infected patients who are also being treated with Rifampicin-based Anti-Tuberculous Therapy (ATT). However, Efavirenz is much more expensive. We hypothesize that Nevirapine is a cheaper alternative that possesses equal efficacy as Efavirenz in HIV-Tuberculosis (TB) co-infected patients. A parallel open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and National AIDS Research Institute (NARI), Pune. Those who were ART-naïve and co-infected with TB were randomized to receive either Nevirapine (Group 1)- or Efavirenz (Group 2)-based ART along with Rifampicin-based ATT. ATT was begun first in ART-naïve patients according to the NACO guidelines, with a median of 27 days between ATT and ART in both groups. The primary endpoint was a composite unfavourable outcome (death and/or ART failure) at 96 weeks, and the secondary outcome was successful TB treatment at 48 weeks. A total of 284 patients (mean age 36.7 ± 8.1 years) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either Nevirapine (n = 144)- or Efavirenz (n = 140)-based ART after a median ATT-ART gap of 27 days. The median CD4 count was 105 cells/μl, with a median viral load of 820,200 copies/μl and no significant difference between the groups. Composite unfavourable outcomes were reported in 49 patients in the Nevirapine group and 51 patients in the Efavirenz group (35.3% vs. 36.9%; hazard ratio, 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63,1.43, adjusted). There was no difference in successful TB treatment outcome between the groups (71.5% vs. 65.6%, 95% CI -3.8,17.9, adjusted). The results were similar, showing no difference between the groups in the two centres of the study after adjusting for disease stage. Composite unfavourable outcome in HIV-TB co-infected patients who were ART-naïve showed no statistically significant difference in the Nevirapine or Efavirenz groups.. Therefore, Nevirapine-based ART is a reasonable alternative to Efavirenz in resource-limited settings. However, multi-centric studies with larger sample sizes are required to confirm these findings. NCT01805258 (Retrospectively registered on March 6, 2013) Date of registration: March 2013.

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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 16%
Other 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 27 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 30 38%
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 16 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,923,510
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,165
of 7,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,535
of 439,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#109
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 439,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.