HIV-Infected Ugandan Adults Taking Antiretroviral Therapy With CD4 Counts >200 Cells/ L Who Discontinue Cotrimoxazole Prophylaxis Have Increased Risk of Malaria and Diarrhea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cotrimoxazole prophylaxis prolongs survival and prevents opportunistic infections, malaria, and diarrhea in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Many countries recommend that individuals taking antiretroviral therapy (ART) discontinue cotrimoxazole when CD4 counts are >200 cells/μL. However, this practice has not been evaluated in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: Patients in the Home-Based AIDS Care program in eastern Uganda initiated ART if they had a CD4 cell count ≤250 cells/μL or World Health Organization stage III or IV HIV disease. In the program's fourth year, patients with CD4 counts >200 cells/μL were randomly assigned, by household, to continue or discontinue cotrimoxazole. Consenting participants were followed for episodes of malaria and diarrhea. RESULTS: At randomization, 836 eligible patients had been receiving ART for a mean of 3.7 years, with a median CD4 count of 489 cells/μL; 94% had a viral load <400 copies/mL. Among those continuing (n = 452) vs discontinuing (n = 384) cotrimoxazole, 0.4 vs 12.2%, respectively, had at least 1 episode of malaria (P < .001), and 14% vs 25%, respectively, had at least 1 episode of diarrhea (P < .001). Compared to those remaining on cotrimoxazole, patients who discontinued had a relative risk of malaria of 32.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.6-275.0; P < .001) and of diarrhea of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.4; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: HIV-infected adults on ART with CD4 counts >200 cells/μL who live in a malaria-endemic area of sub-Saharan Africa and who abruptly discontinue cotrimoxazole prophylaxis have an increased incidence of malaria and diarrhea compared with those who continue prophylaxis. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00119093.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".