HIV coinfection does not compromise liver histological response to interferon therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although discrepancies between histological and virological responses to anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy are well-established in HIV-negative patients, the liver histological outcome has never been assessed in HIV-HCV co-infected patients receiving anti-HCV therapy. We compared histological responses to interferon (IFN) alpha therapy between HIV-positive and HIV-negative injecting drug users (IDU) and determined factors associated with histological response. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Hepatology unit of a tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS/INTERVENTIONS: Seventy-nine HCV-infected IDU (32 HIV-positive) receiving a 6-month course of IFN-alpha2b therapy, 3 x 106 U three times a week. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Histological response, defined by a > or =2 point decrease in total Knodell score measured on paired liver biopsies over a 2-year follow-up period. RESULTS: The sustained response rate to IFN therapy was lower in HIV-positive patients than in HIV-negative patients (6.2% versus 29.8%;P = 0.012). Conversely, the rates of histological response (40.6% versus 36.2%) were not different between HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients. Independent factors associated with histological response were first total Knodell score (P = 0.0007) and sustained response to IFN therapy (odds ratio, 12.34; P = 0.005). Histological response was observed in 25% of IFN non-responders whatever their HIV status. In HIV-positive patients, the CD4 cell count did not influence the histological response. CONCLUSIONS: in HIV-HCV co-infected patients treated with IFN, liver histological improvement is frequently observed, similarly to that observed in HIV-negative patients. Such beneficial effect of interferon therapy supports early treatment of chronic hepatitis C in HIV-infected patients.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".