Virologic Outcome of Using Tenofovir/Emtricitabine to Treat Hepatitis B in HIV-Coinfected Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goal. To study the effect of combination antiviral therapy with tenofovir and emtricitabine or lamivudine with and without prior monotherapy with lamivudine. Study. We reviewed charts of 31 HIV-/HBV-coinfected patients. Twelve 3TC-naïve patients initially received tenofovir plus emtricitabine. Nineteen epivir experienced patients who had previously failed epivir were given tenofovir plus emtricitabine. Results. Baseline median HBV DNA was similar in the epivir-naïve (5.8×10(7) copies/mL) and experienced group (7.3×10(7) copies/mL, P = .65). The median time to complete suppression of HBV was 466 days in the naïve group and 877 days in the experienced (P = .001). After 12 months, 6/10 (60%) naïve patients and 3/14 (21%) experienced patients had HBV DNA below the detectionlimit (P = .067). After 24 months, 5/5 (100%) naïve patients and 4/13 (31%) experienced patients had an undetectable HBV DNA level (P = .015). Conclusions. The median time to suppression of HBV DNA was significantly shorter among treatment naïve patients. There was a significantly greater proportion of naïve patients with suppressed HBV DNA at 24 months. Our results support using initial dual therapy in those with HIV/HBV 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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".