HIV treatment response among female sex workers participating in a treatment as prevention demonstration project in Cotonou, Benin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Female sex workers (FSWs) play a key role in HIV transmission in West Africa, while they have limited access to antiretroviral therapy (ART). In line with UNAIDS recommendations extending ART to all HIV-infected individuals, we conducted this demonstration project on immediate treatment as prevention (TasP) among FSWs in Cotonou, Benin. We report data on treatment response and its relation to adherence, as well as on ART-resistant genotypes. METHODS: Complete follow-up varied between 12 and 24 months. At each three-monthly visit, a questionnaire was administered, clinical examinations were carried out and blood samples collected. Adherence to treatment was estimated by self-report. Viral RNA was genotyped at baseline and final visits for drug resistance. Generalized estimating equations for repeated measures with a log-binomial link were used to analyze time trends and the association between adherence and virological response to treatment. RESULTS: One-hundred-seven HIV-positive and ART-naive FSWs were enrolled; 59.8% remained in the cohort till study completion and 62.6% had a final visit. Viral load<1000 (below quantification limit [<50]) was attained in 73.1% (64.6%) of participants at month-6, 84.8% (71.2%) at month-12, and 80.9% (65.1%) at the final visit. The proportion of women with suppressed (below quantification limit) viral load increased with increasing self-reported adherence (p = 0.06 (0.003), tests for trend). The proportion of participants with CD4≤500 also decreased drastically throughout follow-up (p < .0001). Twelve participants exhibited ART-resistant genotypes at baseline, but only two at their final visit. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that TasP is widely accepted among FSWs in Cotonou and could be implemented with relative success. However, due to mobility in this population, follow-up was sub-optimal, suggesting that large geographical coverage of FSW-friendly clinics is needed for sustained treatment implementation. We also fell short of the UNAIDS objective of 90% viral suppression among treated patients, underlining the need for better adherence support programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".