No Evidence That HIV-1 Subtype C Infection Compromises the Efficacy of Tenofovir-Containing Regimens: Cohort Study in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concern has been expressed that tenofovir-containing regimens may have reduced effectiveness in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) subtype C infections because of a propensity for these viruses to develop a key tenofovir-associated resistance mutation. We evaluated whether subtype influenced rates of virological failure in a cohort of 8746 patients from the United Kingdom who received a standard tenofovir-containing first-line regimen and were followed for a median of 3.3 years. In unadjusted analyses, the rate of failure was approximately 2-fold higher among patients infected with subtype C virus as compared to those with subtype B virus (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-2.31; P < .001). However, the increased risk was greatly attenuated in analyses adjusting for demographic and clinical factors (adjusted HR, 1.14; 95% CI, .83-1.58; P = .41). There were no differences between subtypes C and subtypes non-B and non-C in either univariate or multivariate analysis. These observations imply there is no intrinsic effect of viral subtype on the efficacy of tenofovir-containing regimens.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".