↓ Skip to main content

Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV Infection

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV Infection
Published in
Drugs, November 2012
DOI 10.2165/00003495-199855030-00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Graeme J. Moyle, Brian G. Gazzard, David A. Cooper, José Gatell

Abstract

In the absence of evidence that eradication of HIV from an infected individual is feasible, the established goal of antiretroviral therapy is to reduce viral load to as low as possible for as long as possible. Achieving this with the currently available antiretroviral agents involves appropriate selection of components of combination regimens to obtain an optimal antiviral response. In addition, consideration of a plan for a salvage or second-line regimen is required if initial therapy fails to achieve an optimal response or should loss of virological control occur despite effective initial therapy. Such a planned approach, based on consideration of the likely modes of therapeutic failure (viral resistance, cellular resistance, toxicity) could be called rational sequencing. Choice of therapy should never involve compromise in terms of activity. However, the choice of drug should also be guided by tolerability profiles and considerations of coverage of the widest range of infected cells, compartmental penetration, pharmacokinetic interactions and, importantly, the ability of an agent or combination to limit future therapeutic options through selection of cross-resistant virus. Available clinical end-point data clearly indicate that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy, with clinical and surrogate marker data supporting the use of triple drug (or double protease inhibitor) combinations over double nucleoside analogue combinations. Thus, 3-drug therapy should represent current standard practice in a nontrials setting. Treatment should be considered as early as practical, and may be best guided by measurement of viral load, with a range of other markers having potential utility in individualising treatment decisions. Therapeutic failure may be defined clinically, immunologically or, ideally, virologically, and should prompt substitution of at least 2, and preferably all, components of the treatment regimen. Drug intolerance may also be best managed by rational substitution.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Chemistry 2 5%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 4 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 July 2008.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#1,511
of 3,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,492
of 286,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#351
of 1,067 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 286,187 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,067 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.