↓ Skip to main content

Once-Daily versus Twice-Daily Lamivudine, in Combination with Zidovudine and Efavirenz, for the Treatment of Antiretroviral-Naive Adults with HIV Infection: A Randomized Equivalence Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, July 2004
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Once-Daily versus Twice-Daily Lamivudine, in Combination with Zidovudine and Efavirenz, for the Treatment of Antiretroviral-Naive Adults with HIV Infection: A Randomized Equivalence Trial
Published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases, July 2004
DOI 10.1086/422143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edwin DeJesus, Debra McCarty, Charles F. Farthing, Denise D. Shortino, Beatriz Grinsztejn, Deborah A. Thomas, Shannon R. Schrader, Steve A. Castillo, Michael G. Sension, Kevin Gough, Sam J. Madison

Abstract

A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy controlled, multicenter trial was conducted that involved 554 antiretroviral-naive human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults (plasma HIV type 1 [HIV-1] RNA level, >or=400 copies/mL; CD4(+) cell count, >100 cells/mm(3)) and compared a 300-mg once-daily (q.d.) regimen of lamivudine (3TC) versus a 150-mg twice-daily (b.i.d.) regimen of 3TC, combined with zidovudine (300 mg b.i.d.) and efavirenz (600 mg q.d.), during a 48-week period. Treatments were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in proportions of patients achieving an HIV-1 RNA level of <400 copies/mL was within the bound of -12% to 12%. At week 48 of the study, an intent-to-treat analysis in which patients with missing data were considered to have experienced treatment failure showed that the 3TC q.d. and 3TC b.i.d. regimens were equivalent (HIV-1 RNA level <400 copies/mL, 178 [64%] of 278 vs. 174 [63%] of 276; treatment difference, 1% [95% CI, -7.1% to 8.9%]; HIV-1 RNA level <50 copies/mL, 165 [59%] of 278 vs. 168 [61%] of 276; treatment difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -9.7% to 6.6%]). Median increase above baseline in CD4(+) cell count was similar (q.d. group, +144 cells/mm(3); b.i.d. group, +146 cells/mm(3)), and the incidences of adverse events, disease progression, and HIV-associated conditions were comparable.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Spain 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 39 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 30%
Other 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Chemistry 2 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 4 9%
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 17 April 2013.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#13,846
of 16,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,678
of 59,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#75
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 59,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.