MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969187255 · doi:10.7448/ias.17.4.19757

Time to virologic failure for patients taking their first antiretroviral regimen and the subsequent resistance profiles

2014· article· en· W1969187255 on OpenAlexaffabout
Frederic Crouzat, Anita C. Benoit, Colin Kovacs, Graham Smith, Nathan Taback, Ina Sandler, Jason Brunetta, Benny Chang, Barry Merkley, David Tilley, David Fletcher, Dipen Kalaria, Mona Loutfy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International AIDS Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWomen's College HospitalMaple Leaf Medical Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRegimenInternal medicineViral loadHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Antiretroviral therapyDrug resistanceImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The resistance profiles of first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens after virologic failure have yet to be studied in a clinic setting in the modern treatment era. Time to virologic failure among three standard first-line regimens and the resistance profiles of these failures were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All HIV-positive persons aged 16 and over starting a three-drug first-line ART regimen were retrospectively identified at a Toronto community clinic (1 January 2006-1 January 2013). The regimens included a backbone of two NRTIs and a third agent; a PI, an NNRTI, or an II. Patients must have been on treatment for at least 14 days and have at least one VL test within 6 months after starting treatment. The primary outcome was virologic failure defined as either: no suppression by 6 months, or after suppression, two consecutive, detectable VL200 copies/mL at least 14 days apart or one VL>200 copies/mL. Time to failure was compared using a proportional hazards model adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. Resistance profiles of NRTIs and third agents are described in patients with virologic failure who had both baseline and virologic failure genotypes. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty patients (93% male) were included with a mean age of 38.9 and a median follow-up period of 35.3 (32.2-39.3) months. Distribution of third agent use was: PI 37.3% (n=246), NNRTI 55.9% (n=369) and II 6.8% (n=45). Virologic failures occurred in 81/246 (33%) with PI, 87/369 (24%) with NNRTI and 11/45 (24%) with II. Compare to PIs, time to failure was longer with NNRTIs (p=0.0013) and similar for IIs (p=0.1562). No evidence that failure with NNRTIs was different from IIs (p=0.9139). Of the 660 patients, 567 (86%) had a baseline genotype. Of the 567 patients, 179 had virological failure. Of the 179, 145(81%) had a baseline genotype and only 37 (21%) had both a baseline and follow-up genotype. Upon failure, emerging ART resistance was rare. No new PI or II mutations were identified and one new NNRTI (Y181C) mutation was identified. Three patients taking PI-based regimens developed NRTI mutations (M184V, M184I, T215Y). CONCLUSIONS: Time to virologic failure was significantly greater in the NNRTI group compared to the PI group. If failure did occur, ART resistance rarely developed with no PI mutations but a few NRTI mutations in those taking PI-based regimens, and NNRTI mutations in those taking NNRTI-based regimen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International AIDS SocietySame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207