| Title |
Treatment strategies for treatment naïve HIV patients in Germany: evidence from claims data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-015-1099-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jörg Mahlich, Johannes R Bogner, Jörg Tomeczkowski, Matthias Stoll |
| Abstract |
A recent observational study of HIV patients in Germany suggests that treatment naïve patients that are in a more advanced stage of their disease are more likely to receive a treatment regimen based on a boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) compared with a non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase-inhibitor (NNRTI) base regimen. To validate those results we analysed claims data of seven German sickness funds from 2009 to 2012 with approximately 4 million beneficiaries. Patients in a more advanced disease state (CDC class C) had a higher likelihood to receive a PI/r based regime rather than a NNRTI based regimen as their initial treatment. There was also a significant correlation between PI/r based regimen and number of comorbidities but not with age. Our results confirm a highly significant relationship between being in a more severe stage of HIV disease and a PI/r based treatment regimen. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 27% |
| Researcher | 2 | 18% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 9% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 9% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
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 19 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,765,819
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,203
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,847
of 263,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#63
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 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 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 263,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.