Late initiation of combination antiretroviral therapy in Canada: a call for a national public health strategy to improve engagement in HIV care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) significantly decreases morbidity, mortality and HIV transmission. We aimed to characterize the timing of ART initiation based on CD4 cell count from 2000 to 2012 and identify factors associated with late initiation of treatment. METHODS: Participants from the Canadian Observational Cohort (CANOC), a multi-site cohort of HIV-positive adults initiating ART naively after 1 January 2000, in three Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario and Québec) were included. Late initiation was defined as a CD4 count <200 cells/mm(3) or an AIDS-defining illness before ART initiation (baseline). Temporal trends were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test, and independent correlates of late initiation were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: In total, 8942 participants (18% female) of median age 40 years (Q1-Q3 33-47) were included. The median baseline CD4 count increased from 190 cells/mm(3) (Q1-Q3 80-320) in 2000 to 360 cells/mm(3) (Q1-Q3 220-490) in 2012 (p<0.001). Overall, 4274 participants (48%) initiated ART with a CD4 count <200 cells/mm(3) or AIDS-defining illness. Late initiation was more common among women, non-MSM, older individuals, participants from Ontario and BC (vs. Québec), persons with injection drug use (IDU) history and individuals starting ART in earlier calendar years. In sub-analysis exploring recent (2008 to 2012) predictors using an updated CD4 criterion (<350 cells/mm(3)), IDU and residence in BC (vs. Québec) were no longer significant correlates of late initiation. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis documents increasing baseline CD4 counts over time among Canadians initiating ART. However, CD4 counts at ART initiation remain below contemporary treatment guidelines, highlighting the need for strategies to improve earlier engagement in HIV care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".