PubMed · 9868669
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E S Daar. 1998. Potent antiretroviral therapy does more than just decrease viral load.. https://doi.org/10.1086/515020
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Collecting and documenting subjective prior beliefs from knowledgeable clinicians about the potential results of a clinical trial has many advantages. Two large trials of prophylactic treatments in an HIV-positive population are used as examples. The trials recruited patients of primary care physicians and compared treatments which were in use in clinical practice. Opinions about these trials were elicited from 58 practising HIV clinicians. It is shown how the documented opinions can be used to augment the monitoring process; the prior opinions are updated with interim data using approximate Bayesian methods to give posterior opinions incorporating interim results. These posterior opinions can be used by the monitoring board to anticipate the clinicians' reaction to the results. Eliciting prior beliefs is also ethically important for documenting the nature of the uncertainty or equipoise. Important information is provided for the informed consent process and Institutional Review Board (IRB).
After initiation of a treatment for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection containing a protease inhibitor, immune restoration associated with increases in CD4-positive (CD4+) T lymphocyte count may be delayed. In a sample of patients who had been prescribed protease inhibitors for the first time, the authors tested to see whether there was a minimal duration of CD4+ cell count increase before the increase had an impact on the occurrence of opportunistic infections. The evolution (difference between time t and baseline) of CD4+ cell count was modeled using a mixed effects linear model. Changes in CD4+ count estimated by this model were then included as time-dependent covariates in a proportional hazards model. Finally, the authors tested for the existence of a CD4+ change x time interaction. The authors used a sample of 553 French patients first prescribed protease inhibitors in 1996 and followed for a median of 16 months. During the first 120 days, there was no association between CD4+ change and the rate of opportunistic infections. After 120 days, each 50-cell/mm3 increase in CD4+ count was associated with a 60% (95% confidence interval: 45, 72) reduction in the incidence of opportunistic infections. These results, based on modeling of CD4+ cell response, at least indirectly reinforce the concept of a delayed but possible immune recovery with the use of protease inhibitors. The findings support the potential for interruption of certain types of prophylaxis against opportunistic infections under reasonable conditions of duration of antiretroviral therapy and sustained CD4+ cell response.
Six-month regimens that include rifampin for the treatment of tuberculosis in patients without human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are recommended because of low percentage of relapses. Whether a similar duration of therapy should be used to treat tuberculosis in HIV-infected patients is unclear. Six studies of patients with HIV-infection and 3 of patients without HIV infection were reviewed and compared. The studies differed in terms of design, eligibility criteria, site of disease, frequency of dosing, dose administration methods, and outcome definitions. Among HIV-infected patients, the following percentages were found: cure, 59.4%--97.1%; treatment success, 34.0%--100%; effective treatment, 29.4%--88.2%; and relapse, 0%--10%. In those without HIV infection, percentages were as follows: cure, 62.3%--88.0%; treatment success, 91.2%--98.8%; effective treatment, 70.6%--83.8%; and relapse, 0%--3.4%. Although the rate of relapse appeared to be higher in some studies of HIV-infected patients with tuberculosis, this review demonstrates the limitation in the use of relapse as the exclusive outcome of interest when comparing studies.