Treatment limitations imposed by antiretroviral drug resistance mutations: implication for choices of first line regimens in resource‐limited settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that failing nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens may have greater potential to induce the development of resistance mutations, which may limit options for second-line therapy. METHODS: Antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve individuals aged ≥18 years who initiated triple combination ART between January 2000 and June 2006 in British Columbia, Canada were enrolled in the study. We compared genotypic sensitivity scores (GSSs) derived from the development of resistance mutations between participants who initiated ART with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PIs) with those who initiated ART with NNRTIs, and determined the effects of these mutations on remaining active drugs. RESULTS: A total of 1666 participants initiated ART, 818 (49.1%) with NNRTI-based regimens and 848 (50.9%) with boosted PI-based regimens. Among participants who developed resistance mutations, those who initiated NNRTI-based regimens had a lower median GSS than those on boosted PI-based regimens (9.8 vs. 11.0, respectively; P<0.001). Participants on boosted PI-based regimens [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 3.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.25, 6.01], those with ≥95% adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) (AOR 1.84; 95% CI 1.16, 2.92) and those with baseline CD4 count >200 cells/μL (AOR 3.44; 95% CI 1.73, 6.84) were more likely to have the maximum number of drug options. CONCLUSION: The use of NNRTI-based first-line ART regimens may limit the options for second-line treatment when the number of available drugs is limited.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".