Tenofovir and Emtricitabine Resistance among Antiretroviral-Naive Patients in the Canadian Observational Cohort Collaboration: Implications for PrEP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The real-world effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) may be influenced by circulating HIV strains resistant to either tenofovir or emtricitabine. Yet, few studies have examined rates of resistance to these drugs in clinical settings. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of antiretroviral-naive participants in the Canadian Observational Cohort collaboration who initiated antiretroviral therapy between 2006 and 2014. In separate analyses, we determined the prevalence of pretherapy resistance and cumulative incidence of follow-up resistance to tenofovir and emtricitabine. We used multivariable proportional hazards models to examine associations between baseline variables and the development of resistance. Results We studied 6,622 antiretroviral-naive participants initiating therapy, of whom 5,428 (82.0%) had a baseline resistance test. Baseline resistance to tenofovir and emtricitabine was observed in 83 (1.5%) and 21 (0.4%) patients, respectively. Among patients without baseline resistance, the cumulative incidence of resistance to tenofovir and emtricitabine 5 years following treatment initiation was 0.0070 (95% CI 0.0046, 0.0095) and 0.033 (95% CI 0.028, 0.038), respectively. Following multivariable analysis, a baseline viral load ≥100,000 copies/ml was associated with emergence of tenofovir (hazard ratio [HR] 2.88; 95% CI 1.35, 6.15) and emtricitabine (HR 2.27; 95% CI 1.64, 3.15) resistance. Initiating an integrase inhibitor-based regimen and CD4 + T-cell count below 200 cells/mm 3 were also associated with resistance to each drug. Conclusions We observed a low prevalence of baseline resistance and a low incidence of emergence of resistance to tenofovir and emtricitabine among antiretroviral-naive patients in routine clinical care.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".