Congenital anomalies following antenatal exposure to dolutegravir: a Canadian surveillance study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Dolutegravir is recommended worldwide as a first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) for individuals living with HIV. A recent study reported increased rates of neural tube defects in infants of dolutegravir-treated women. This study examined rates of congenital anomalies in infants born to women living with HIV (WLWH) in Canada. DESIGN: The Canadian Perinatal HIV Surveillance Programme captures surveillance data on pregnant WLWH and their babies and was analysed to examine the incidence of congenital anomalies. SETTING: Paediatric HIV clinics. POPULATION: Live-born infants born in Canada to WLWH between 2007 and 2017. METHODS: Data on mother-infant pairs, including maternal ART use at conception and during pregnancy, are collected by participating sites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Congenital anomalies. RESULTS: Of the 2423 WLWH, 85 (3.5%, 95% CI 2.85-4.36%) had non-chromosomal congenital anomalies. There was no evidence of a significant difference in rates of congenital anomalies between women who were on ART in their first trimester (3.9%, CI 1.7-7.6%) or later in the pregnancy (3.9%, 95% CI 2.6-5.6%). Four of the 80 (5.0%, 95% CI 1.4-12.3%) neonates born to WLWH on dolutegravir during the first trimester had congenital anomalies, none were neural tube defects (95% CI 0.00-3.10%). CONCLUSION: Despite recent evidence raising a safety concern, this analysis found no signal for increased congenital anomalies. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Five percent of the infants of Canadian women living with HIV on dolutegravir at conception had congenital anomalies; none had neural tube defects.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".