How Generalizable Are the Results From Trials of Direct Antiviral Agents to People Coinfected With HIV/HCV in the Real World?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) against hepatitis C virus (HCV) have been described as revolutionary. However, it remains uncertain how effective these drugs will be for individuals coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-HCV. Bridging this gap between efficacy and effectiveness requires a focus on the generalizability of clinical trials. METHODS: Generalizability of DAA trials was assessed by applying the eligibility criteria from 5 efficacy trials: NCT01479868, PHOTON-1 (NCT01667731), TURQUOISE-I (NCT01939197), ION-4 (NCT02073656), and ALLY-2 (NCT02032888) that evaluated simeprevir; sofosbuvir; ombitasvir, paritaprevir/ritonavir/dasabuvir; sofosbuvir/ledipasvir; and daclatasvir/sofosbuvir, respectively, to the Canadian Coinfection Cohort, representing approximately 23% of the total coinfected population in care in Canada. RESULTS: Of 874 active participants, 70% had chronic HCV, of whom 410, 26, 94, and 11 had genotypes 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. After applying trial eligibility criteria, only 5.9% (24/410) would have been eligible for enrollment in the simeprevir trial, 9.8% (52/530) in PHOTON-1, 6.3% (26/410) in TURQUOISE-I, and 8.1% (34/421) in ION-4. The ALLY-2 study was more inclusive; 43% (233/541) of the cohort would have been eligible. The most exclusive eligibility criteria across all trials with the exception of ALLY-2 were restriction to specific antiretroviral therapies (63%-79%) and active illicit drug use (53%-55%). CONCLUSIONS: DAA trial results may have limited generalizability, since the majority of coinfected individuals were not eligible to participate. Exclusions appeared to be related to improving treatment outcomes by not including those at higher risk of poor adherence and reinfection--individuals for whom real-world data are urgently needed.
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 | 0.539 | 0.701 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".