Risk factors for treatment-limiting toxicities in patients starting nevirapine-containing antiretroviral therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This collaboration of seven observational clinical cohorts investigated risk factors for treatment-limiting toxicities in both antiretroviral-naive and experienced patients starting nevirapine-based combination antiretroviral therapy (NVPc). METHODS: Patients starting NVPc after 1 January 1998 were included. CD4 cell count at starting NVPc was classified as high (>400/microl/>250/microl for men/women, respectively) or low. Cox models were used to investigate risk factors for discontinuations due to hypersensitivity reactions (HSR, n = 6547) and discontinuation of NVPc due to treatment-limiting toxicities and/or patient/physician choice (TOXPC, n = 10,186). Patients were classified according to prior antiretroviral treatment experience and CD4 cell count/viral load at start NVPc. Models were stratified by cohort and adjusted for age, sex, nadir CD4 cell count, calendar year of starting NVPc and mode of transmission. RESULTS: Median time from starting NVPc to TOXPC and HSR were 162 days [interquartile range (IQR) 31-737] and 30 days (IQR 17-60), respectively. In adjusted Cox analyses, compared to naive patients with a low CD4 cell count, treatment-experienced patients with high CD4 cell count and viral load more than 400 had a significantly increased risk for HSR [hazard ratio 1.45, confidence interval (CI) 1.03-2.03] and TOXPC within 18 weeks (hazard ratio 1.34, CI 1.08-1.67). In contrast, treatment-experienced patients with high CD4 cell count and viral load less than 400 had no increased risk for HSR 1.10 (0.82-1.46) or TOXPC within 18 weeks (hazard ratio 0.94, CI 0.78-1.13). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest it may be relatively well tolerated to initiate NVPc in antiretroviral-experienced patients with high CD4 cell counts provided there is no detectable viremia.
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) | 0.000 | 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".