Safety of combination antiretroviral prophylaxis in high‐risk HIV‐exposed newborns: a retrospective review of the Canadian experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The optimal management of infants born to HIV-positive mothers who are untreated or have detectable viral load prior to delivery remains controversial. Despite the increasing use of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) of neonates at high risk of HIV infection, there is little safety and pharmacokinetic data to support this approach. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of cART for PEP in HIV-exposed neonates. METHODS: Retrospective study on 148 cART and 145 Zidovudine (ZDV) monotherapy-exposed infants identified from four Canadian centres where cART for PEP has routinely been prescribed in high-risk situations. Physician-reported adverse events and clinical outcomes were extracted by chart review. Haematological and growth parameters at birth, one and six months of age were compared between cART and ZDV-exposed infants using multivariate mixed effects modelling. RESULTS: Non-specific signs and symptoms were reported in 10.2% of cART recipients versus none of the ZDV recipients. Treatment was discontinued prematurely in 9.5% of cART recipients versus 2.1% of ZDV recipients (p=0.01). In the multivariate model, cART recipients had lower mean haemoglobin (decrease of 2.07 g/L) over the 6-month period compared with ZDV recipients (p=0.04), but no effect was seen on absolute neutrophil count. cART recipients had lower weight and smaller head circumference at birth and one month of age compared with ZDV-exposed infants; these differences were no longer significant at six months of age. CONCLUSIONS: cART administered at treatment doses for PEP in neonates was generally well tolerated, though a higher incidence of non-specific signs and symptoms and early treatment discontinuation occurred among cART recipients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".