No impact of oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on herpes simplex virus shedding in HIV-infected adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to determine the impact of oral tenofovir as part of combination antiretroviral therapy on asymptomatic herpes simplex virus (HSV) shedding. DESIGN: observational study of a cohort of HSV, HIV-1 co-infected adults. METHODS: HSV infection was diagnosed using type-specific serology (HerpeSelect ELISA, Focus Technologies). Asymptomatic HSV, HIV-1 co-infected individuals achieving HIV viral load below 50 copies/ml on antiretroviral therapy self-collected oral, genital and anal swabs daily for 28 days. Refrigerated specimens were dropped off weekly for HSV-1 and HSV-2 testing by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Shedding rate was calculated as the proportion of days on which HSV PCR was positive. RESULTS: : Forty co-infected patients were enrolled, of whom 30 were HSV-2 seropositive. Tenofovir was part of the antiretroviral regimen in 22 of 40 (55%) participants overall and 17 of 30 (57%) of HSV-2 infected participants. The median (interquartile range) HSV-2 shedding rate among HSV-2 seropositive participants was low, at 7.1% (0, 14.3) of specimen collection days, and did not differ between tenofovir users and nonusers (P = 0.36). There was no difference in the number of HSV-2 shedders in the tenofovir and nontenofovir groups (59 vs. 46%; P = 0.49). Rates of shedding for HSV-1 alone (P = 0.59), and for either HSV-1 or HSV-2 (P = 0.38), were also similar between tenofovir users and nonusers. CONCLUSION: although topical tenofovir 1% gel was associated with a significant decrease in HSV-2 acquisition among high-risk women in the recent CAPRISA 004 trial, in these preliminary data we did not observe an impact of oral tenofovir on HSV-2 or HSV-1 shedding rates among HIV, HSV co-infected asymptomatic adults.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".