Does gender or mode of <scp>HIV</scp> acquisition affect virological response to modern antiretroviral therapy (<scp>ART</scp>)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previous UK studies have reported disparities in HIV treatment outcomes for women. We investigated whether these differences persist in the modern antiretroviral treatment (ART) era. METHODS: A single-centre cohort analysis was carried out. We included in the study all previously ART-naïve individuals at our clinic starting triple ART from 1 January 2006 onwards with at least one follow-up viral load (VL). Time to viral suppression (VS; first viral load < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL), virological failure (VF; first of two consecutive VLs > 200 copies/mL more than 6 months post-ART) and treatment modification were estimated using standard survival methods. RESULTS: Of 1086 individuals, 563 (52%) were men whose risk for HIV acquisition was sex with other men (MSM), 207 (19%) were men whose risk for HIV acquisition was sex with women (MSW) and 316 (29%) were women. Median pre-ART CD4 count and time since HIV diagnosis in these groups were 298, 215 and 219 cells/μL, and 2.3, 0.3 and 0.3 years, respectively. Time to VS was comparable between groups, but women [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28-4.22] and MSW (aHR 3.28; 95% CI 1.91-5.64) were at considerably higher risk of VF than MSM. Treatment switches and complete discontinuation were also more common among MSW [aHR 1.38 (95% CI 1.04-1.81) and aHR 1.73 (95% CI 0.97-3.16), respectively] and women [aHR 1.87 (95% CI 1.43-2.46) and aHR 3.20 (95% CI 2.03-5.03), respectively] than MSM. CONCLUSIONS: Although response rates were good in all groups, poorer virological outcomes for women and MSW have persisted into the modern ART era. Factors that might influence the differences include socioeconomic status and mental health disorders. Further interventions to ensure excellent response rates in women and MSW are required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".