Hepatitis C virus treatment rates and outcomes in HIV/hepatitis C virus co-infected individuals at an urban HIV clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The factors associated with hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment uptake and responses were assessed among HCV/HIV co-infected individuals referred for HCV therapy at an urban HIV clinic. METHODS: Retrospective review of HIV/HCV patients enrolled in the HCV treatment program at the John Ruedy Immunodeficiency Clinic in Vancouver. The factors associated with treatment uptake were assessed using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 134 HCV/HIV co-infected individuals were recalled for assessment for HCV therapy. Overall 64 (48%) initiated treatment, and of those treated 49 (76.6%) attained end treatment response, whereas 35 (57.8%) achieved sustained virological response (SVR). When evaluated by genotype, 53% (17/32) of those with genotype 1, and 65% (20/31) of those with genotype 2 or 3 infections attained SVR. In treated individuals, alanine aminotransferase dropped significantly after treatment (P<0.001). During treatment, CD4 counts dropped significantly (P<0.001) in all patients. The counts recovered to baseline in patients who achieved SVR, but remained lower in patients who failed the therapy (P=0.015). On multivariate analysis, history of injection drug use (odds ratio: 3.48; 95% confidence interval: 1.37-8.79; P=0.009) and low hemoglobin levels (odds ratio: 4.23; 95% confidence interval: 1.36-13.10; P=0.013) were associated with those who did not enter the treatment. CONCLUSION: Only half of treatment-eligible co-infected patients referred for the therapy initiated treatment. Of those referred for the therapy, history of injection drug use was associated with lower rates of treatment uptake. Treated HIV/HCV co-infected individuals benefitted from both decreased alanine aminotransferase (independent of SVR), and rates of SVR similar to those described in HCV monoinfected patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".