↓ Skip to main content

Reactivity of routine HIV antibody tests in children who initiated antiretroviral therapy in early infancy as part of the Children with HIV Early Antiretroviral Therapy (CHER) trial: a retrospective…

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Infectious Diseases, June 2015
Altmetric Badge
7

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Reactivity of routine HIV antibody tests in children who initiated antiretroviral therapy in early infancy as part of the Children with HIV Early Antiretroviral Therapy (CHER) trial: a retrospective analysis
Published in
Lancet Infectious Diseases, June 2015
DOI 10.1016/s1473-3099(15)00087-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Payne, Nonhlanhla Mkhize, Kennedy Otwombe, Joanna Lewis, Ravindre Panchia, Robin Callard, Lynn Morris, Abdel Babiker, Avy Violari, Mark F Cotton, Nigel J Klein, Diana M Gibb

Abstract

Early antiretroviral therapy (ART) and virological suppression can affect evolving antibody responses to HIV infection. We aimed to assess frequency and predictors of seronegativity in infants starting early ART. We compared HIV antibody results between two of three treatment groups of the Children with HIV Early Antiretroviral Therapy (CHER) trial, done from July, 2005, until July, 2011, in which infants with HIV infection aged 5·7-12·0 weeks with a percentage of CD4-positive T lymphocytes of at least 25% were randomly assigned to immediate ART for 96 weeks (ART-96W) or deferred ART until clinical or immunological progression (ART-Def). We measured antibody from all available stored samples for ART-96W and ART-Def at trial week 84 using three assays: fourth-generation enzyme immunoassay HIV antigen-antibody combination, HIV-1 and HIV-2 rapid antibody test, and quantitative anti-gp120 IgG ELISA. We also assessed odds of seropositivity with respect to age of ART initiation and cumulative viral load. The CHER trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00102960. The median age of the infants from when samples were taken (184 samples from 268 infants) was 92 weeks (IQR 90·6-93·4). More specimens from the ART-96W group were seronegative than from the ART-Def group by enzyme immunoassay (ART-96W 49 [46%] of 107 vs ART-Def eight [11%] of 75; p<0·0001) and rapid antibody test (54 [53%] of 101 vs eight [11%] of 74; p<0·0001). Median anti-gp120 IgG concentration was lower in the ART-96W group (230 μg/μL [IQR 133-13 129]) than in the ART-Def group (6870 μg/μL [1706-53 645]; p<0·0001). If ART was started between 12 and 24 weeks of age, odds of seropositivity were increased 13·7 times (95% CI 3·1-60·2; p=0·001) compared with starting it between 0 and 12 weeks. All children starting ART aged older than 24 weeks were seropositive. Cumulative viral load to week 84 correlated with anti-gp120 IgG concentrations (coefficient 0·54; p<0·0001) and increased odds of seropositivity (odds ratio 1·59 [95% CI 1·1-2·3]) adjusted for ART initiation age. About half of children starting ART before 12 weeks of age were HIV seronegative by almost 2 years of age. HIV antibody tests cannot be used to reconfirm HIV diagnosis in children starting early ART. Long-term effects of seronegativity need further study. Clear guidelines are needed for retesting alongside improved diagnostic tests. Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, and National Institutes of Health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Master 15 14%
Other 7 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 5%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 27 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 August 2021.
All research outputs
#5,176,523
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#3,500
of 6,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,738
of 281,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#47
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 92.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 281,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 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 56% of its contemporaries.