Risk of End-Stage Liver Disease in HIV-Viral Hepatitis Coinfected Persons in North America From the Early to Modern Antiretroviral Therapy Eras
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients coinfected with hepatitis B (HBV) and C (HCV) viruses are at increased risk of end-stage liver disease (ESLD). Whether modern antiretroviral therapy has reduced ESLD risk is unknown. METHODS: Twelve clinical cohorts in the United States and Canada participating in the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design validated ESLD events from 1996 to 2010. ESLD incidence rates and rate ratios according to hepatitis status adjusted for age, sex, race, cohort, time-updated CD4 cell count and HIV RNA were estimated in calendar periods corresponding to major changes in antiretroviral therapy: early (1996-2000), middle (2001-2005), and modern (2006-2010) eras. RESULTS: Among 34 119 HIV-infected adults followed for 129 818 person-years, 380 incident ESLD outcomes occurred. ESLD incidence (per 1000 person-years) was highest in triply infected (11.57) followed by HBV- (8.72) and HCV- (6.10) coinfected vs 1.27 in HIV-monoinfected patients. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (95% confidence intervals) comparing the modern to the early antiretroviral era were 0.95 (.61-1.47) for HCV, 0.95 (.40-2.26) for HBV, and 1.52 (.46-5.02) for triply infected patients. Use of antiretrovirals dually activity against HBV increased over time. However, in the modern era, 35% of HBV-coinfected patients were not receiving tenofovir. There was little use of HCV therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing use of antiretrovirals, no clear reduction in ESLD risk was observed over 15 years. Treatment with direct-acting antivirals for HCV and wider use of tenofovir-based regimens for HBV should be prioritized for coinfected 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".