Virologic and Immunologic Response to Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy in Indigenous and Nonindigenous HIV-1???Infected Patients in The Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of antiretroviral treatment (highly active antiretroviral therapy [HAART]) in indigenous Dutch (ID) and nonindigenous HIV-1-infected patients in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We focused on the largest groups of nonindigenous people visiting our outpatient clinic: patients from other industrialized countries (western), from Surinam/Netherlands Antilles (SNA), and from sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of 692 therapy-naive HIV-1-positive individuals who visited our outpatient clinic for the first time between July 1, 1996 and December 31, 2001. METHODS: We compared the groups at the time of their first visit to our clinic; at the start of HAART; and according to the virological, immunologic, and clinical treatment response during the 96 weeks after the start of HAART. RESULTS: Of the patients starting antiretroviral therapy, 362 were ID, 84 were western, 72 were from SNA, and 110 were from SSA. SNA and SSA patients had a lower CD4 cell count at first visit (ID = 330 cells/mm(3), western = 330 cells/mm(3), SNA = 250 cells/mm(3), and SSA = 170 cells/mm(3); P = 0.0002). Treatment in SNA and SSA patients was also started at a lower CD4 cell count, but the plasma HIV-1 RNA level was comparable. After the start of HAART, a similar rise in CD4 cell count was seen in the 4 groups (P = 0.33), but the baseline difference in CD4 cell count remained present during the follow-up period of 96 weeks. After adjusting for variables potentially influencing treatment outcome, the proportion of patients not reaching a plasma HIV-1 RNA level <400 copies/mL was not different for the 4 groups in contrast to the percentage not reaching a plasma HIV-1 RNA level <50 copies/mL (at 48 weeks: ID = 4.8%, western = 27.5%, SNA = 23.1%, and SSA = 24.2%; P = 0.017 over the 96-week time period). After the start of HAART, nonindigenous patients also more often had progression to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stage C or died (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In nonindigenous patients, treatment with HAART was equally successful in terms of the increase in CD4 cell count but was substantially less effective in achieving a plasma HIV-1 RNA level below 50 copies/mL. Further investigations should explore differences in adherence and pharmacokinetics in these patient groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".