• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letter  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • HIV/AIDS  • Drug Therapy  • Drug Therapy, Other  • Infectious Diseases  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Eran Bendavid, MD; Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In reply

Phillips and colleagues request a clarification of our analysis into the effectiveness of human immunodeficiency virus monitoring in resource-limited settings. They correctly point out that CD4 count monitoring to determine timing of treatment initiation can be analyzed separately from monitoring to determine when to switch therapy. In their analysis based on a computer simulation model, Phillips et al find little suggestion that determining the timing to switch from first- to second-line therapy using CD4 counts results in improved survival compared with symptomatic monitoring.¹ At their request, we performed an analysis in which people began first-line therapy based on symptoms alone, and timing of treatment change was based on monitoring CD4 counts. In line with the results of Phillips and colleagues, we find that using CD4 counts in this situation results in a benefit of 18 to 30 days compared with . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION


CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTER

Cost-effectiveness of Strategies for Monitoring the Response to Antiretroviral Therapy in Resource-Limited Settings
Andrew N. Phillips, Charles Gilks, DPhil, and Jens D. Lundgren
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(9):904.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT