Clinical features of acute HIV-1 infection: zidovudine-resistant isolates compared with zidovudine-sensitive isolates
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The transmission of isolates resistant to zidovudine (ZDV) was initially reported in 1992 [1]. The prevalence of primary ZDV resistance is as high as 10% in some countries [2]. Case reports suggested that acute HIV infection with ZDV resistance is exceptionally severe [1,3]. We compared the clinical features of patients recently infected with ZDV-resistant strains to those infected with ZDV-sensitive strains. These subjects were taken from patients participating in a clinical trial [4], or from cohorts established by the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland [5], the National Center for HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research of Sydney, Australia [6] and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada [7]. Among this cohort extensively described [8], the presence of ZDV resistance was determined by means of a selective polymerase chain reaction assay designed to detect the T215Y or F mutation [9]. Each patient with the 215 mutation (resistant group, n = 13) was matched with three, or four when available, patients with susceptible isolates (non-resistant group, n = 44). The matching was based on the same time delay (within 2 days) from the onset of acute HIV infection to the virus analysis. Patients were recruited between 1988–1991 (n = 13), 1992–1993 (n = 30) and 1994–1995 (n = 14). The diagnosis of acute/early HIV infection was based on the following criteria: negative or weakly positive HIV antibody enzyme immunoassay test with positive p24 antigenemia (n = 47); negative or weakly positive HIV antibody enzyme immunoassay test with indeterminate Western blot confirmatory test (n = 7); documented HIV seroconversion within the previous year (n = 3). In subsequent follow-up, all patients were shown to be positive for HIV antibodies by Western blot. The comparisons of proportions were carried out using the Chi squared or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. The Mann–Whitney U-test was used for comparisons of distributions of continuous variables. The median time between the onset of acute HIV-1 infection and the evaluation of ZDV resistance was 25 days. The proportion of men was 84 and 90% in the resistant and sensitive groups, respectively (P = 0.61). The routes of infection were homosexual or bisexual intercourse for 10 (77%) individuals in the resistant group and for 25 individuals (57%) in the sensitive group (P = 0.32). As shown in Table 1, there was no difference in clinical characteristics between the two groups, except for the slightly longer duration of oral ulcers (P = 0.04) and a trend towards more prevalent cervical adenopathy (P = 0.09) in the sensitive group. In view of the number of comparisons made, these differences may be due to chance. A total of eight out of 13 (61%) patients with resistant isolates received ZDV, compared with 15 out of 44 (34%) drug-sensitive individuals (P = 0.11).Table 1: Patient characteristics and comparisons of clinical features at primary HIV infection between patients infected by wild type (zidovudine-sensitive) or mutant (zidovudine-resistant) strain. Infection with mutant strains thus does not appear to lead to more severe symptoms at the time of infection, as reported by others in the absence of a control group [1,3]. On the other hand, a hypothetical decrease of viral fitness related to the genotype mutation did not seem to facilitate the emergence of more severe symptoms in the sensitive group [10]. Acknowledgements The authors are indebted to F. Lemay, C. Perron, R. Read (Montreal), and M.A. Trabaud (Lyon). Philippe Vanhemsa Rolland Gaudetb Bernard Hirschelc Allison Imried* Brian Conwaye Danielle Rouleauf Jeanette Vizzardd Luc Perrinc David A. Cooperd Sabine Yerlyc
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».