Special considerations in the initiation and management of antiretroviral therapy in individuals coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although hepatitis C (HCV) treatment efficacy has improved in recent years, the majority of HIV/HCV-coinfected individuals may not enjoy the full benefits of these treatments and appropriate HIV management is crucial. Evidence is accumulating regarding the impact of HIV/HCV coinfection on the response to, and safety and tolerability of, antiretroviral therapy (ART) in this population. METHODS: Computerized, English-language literature searches of MEDLINE and PubMed databases (January 1985 to May 2004) for studies of HIV and HCV infection in humans to examine critically (a) the impact of HCV on the HIV virologic and immunologic response to ART; (b) the safety and tolerability of ART in coinfected individuals; and (c) the relationship between immune suppression and immune restoration on hepatic injury. RESULTS: Three key messages emerged regarding the use of ART in HIV/HCV-coinfected individuals: (a) although HCV appeared to have no impact on HIV virologic response, the data are equivocal regarding immunologic response; (b) morbidities associated with HCV infection, such as insulin resistance, diabetes, mitochondrial dysfunction, and liver inflammation, are also associated toxicities of ART, and (c) both immune suppression and restoration can contribute to the onset and acceleration of HCV-related liver disease. CONCLUSIONS: The CD4 cell count threshold for initiating ART in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients may be higher because of the impact of immune suppression and restoration on the onset of HCV-associated liver disease and the possibility of a blunted immune response to ART at lower CD4 cell counts. Further, overlapping morbidity between HCV-related mitochondrial and metabolic disease manifestations and ART toxicities warrant careful attention by clinicians.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".