↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of abacavir-containing combination antiretroviral therapy as first-line treatment of HIV infected children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and safety of abacavir-containing combination antiretroviral therapy as first-line treatment of HIV infected children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1183-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olatunji O. Adetokunboh, Anel Schoonees, Tolulope A. Balogun, Charles S. Wiysonge

Abstract

Abacavir is one of the recommended nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) for the treatment of HIV infections among children and adolescents. However, there are concerns that the antiviral efficacy of abacavir might be low when compared to other NRTIs especially among children. There are also concerns that abacavir use may lead to serious adverse events such as hypersensitivity reactions and has potential predisposition to developing cardiovascular diseases We searched four electronic databases, four conference proceedings and two clinical trial registries in August 2014, without language restrictions. Experimental and observational studies with control groups that examined the efficacy and safety of abacavir-containing regimens in comparison with other NRTIs as first-line treatment for HIV-infected children and adolescents aged between one month and eighteen years were eligible. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies using a pre-specified, standardised data extraction form and validated risk of bias tools. We also assessed the quality of evidence per outcome with the GRADE tool. We included two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two analytical cohort studies with a total of 10,595 participants. Among the RCTs we detected no difference in virologic suppression after a mean duration of 48 weeks between abacavir- and stavudine-containing regimens (2 trials; n = 326: RR 1.28; 95 % CI 0.67-2.42) with significant heterogeneity (P = 0.02; I(2) = 81 %). We also found no significant differences between the two groups for adverse events and death. After five years of follow-up, virologic suppression improved with abacavir (1 trial; n = 69: RR 1.96; 95 % CI 1.11-3.44). For cohort studies, we detected that the virologic suppression activity of abacavir was less effective than stavudine in both the lopinavir/ritonavir (1 study, n = 2165: RR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.67-0.92) and efavirenz sub-groups (1 study, n = 3204: RR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.67-0.92) respectively. The quality of evidence from RCTs was moderate for virologic suppression but low for death and adverse events, while that of cohort studies was low for all three these outcomes. Available evidence showed little or no difference between abacavir-containing regimen and other NRTIs regarding efficacy and safety when given to children and adolescents as a first-line antiretroviral therapy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 7 7%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 23 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 November 2015.
All research outputs
#6,962,756
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,238
of 7,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,837
of 284,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#56
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 284,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.