Significant differences in clinical outcomes between HIV-hepatitis C virus coinfected individuals with and without injection drug use history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Studies focusing on HIV-hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfected individuals without a history of IDU are limited. It is plausible that poorer clinical outcomes in HIV-HCV coinfection are due to factors associated with IDU, not from HCV itself. This study compares HIV treatment outcomes and survival between HIV-HCV coinfected individuals with and without IDU history. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. METHODS: We analyzed data from a multisite Canadian cohort study of HIV-positive individuals initiating combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) after 1 January 2000. This analysis was restricted to 1254 participants with HCV coinfection and known IDU history. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate time from ART initiation to virologic suppression (two consecutive measures <250 copies/ml) and CD4 cell count recovery (+100 cells/μl). In order to account for loss to follow-up (LTFU), competing risk analysis was used to evaluate time to death. RESULTS: A total of 1254 participants (31% women) were included. During a median follow-up time of 3.8 years (interquartile range = 2.1-6.2), 217 deaths were reported and 148 participants were LTFU. In adjusted multivariable analysis, individuals with IDU history were significantly less likely to achieve virologic suppression [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.64-0.95]; marginally less likely to have CD4 cell count recovery (AHR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.66-1.00); and had a significantly higher risk of death (AHR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.25-3.70). CONCLUSION: IDU history independently elevates risk for poorer clinical outcomes, separate from HCV coinfection. HIV-HCV coinfected persons are not homogeneous in characteristics or outcomes, suggesting care should be taken during statistical analyses if attributing poorer HIV-specific outcomes solely to HCV coinfection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".