Effectiveness of Transmitted Drug Resistance Testing Before Initiation of Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-Positive Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For people living with HIV, major guidelines in high-income countries recommend testing for transmitted drug resistance (TDR) to guide the choice of first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART). However, individuals who fail a first-line regimen can now be switched to one of several effective regimens. Therefore, the virological and clinical benefit of TDR testing needs to be evaluated. METHODS: We included individuals from the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration who enrolled <6 months of HIV diagnosis between 2006 and 2015, were ART-naive, and had measured CD4 count and HIV-RNA. Follow-up started at the date when all inclusion criteria were first met (baseline). We compared 2 strategies: (1) TDR testing within 3 months of baseline versus (2) no TDR testing. We used inverse probability weighting to estimate the 5-year proportion and hazard ratios (HRs) of virological suppression (confirmed HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL), and of AIDS or death under both strategies. RESULTS: Of 25,672 eligible individuals (82% males, 52% diagnosed in 2010 or later), 17,189 (67%) were tested for TDR within 3 months of baseline. Of these, 6% had intermediate- or high-level TDR to any antiretroviral drug. The estimated 5-year proportion virologically suppressed was 77% under TDR testing and 74% under no TDR testing; HR 1.06 (95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 1.19). The estimated 5-year risk of AIDS or death was 6% under both strategies; HR 1.03 (95% confidence interval: 0.95 to 1.12). CONCLUSIONS: TDR prevalence was low. Although TDR testing improved virological response, we found no evidence that it reduced the incidence of AIDS or death in first 5 years after diagnosis.
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 | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".