Impact of previous HIV resistance and virologic failures on virologic outcome following a switch to dolutegravir with 2 NRTIs among people living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is uncertainty regarding the potential virologic outcome associated with a change in antiretroviral therapy (ARV) among PLHIV who had previous documented virologic failure or who have been exposure to mono/dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) therapy. The objective was to measure the potential impact of exposure to previous virologic failure or mono/dual NRTI regimen on virologic outcome of PLHIV following a switch to dolutegravir with 2 NRTIs from a viremia suppressive ARV therapy.Data from the Quebec HIV Cohort including 10219 PLHIV were collected through routine clinical care at 4 clinical sites in Montreal, Canada. This study includes patients whose ARV therapy was switched to dolutegravir with 2 NRTIs since 2013 with undetectable viral load for ≥6 months before switch. The association between exposure and post-switch virologic outcome was measured by marginal hazard ratio estimated using the Inverse probability weighting Cox model.Among the 1199 eligible PLHIV, 478 (39.9%) previously experienced at least one virologic failure or were exposed to mono/dual therapy before dolutegravir switch. Post-switch virologic failure after 30 months occurred in 4.1% (95% CI 2.1-7.9) of exposed compared to 4.1% (95% CI 2.3-7.4) in unexposed participants. The adjusted hazard ratio for the association between exposure and post-switch virologic failure was 0.84 (95% CI 0.35-2.01).Our findings suggest that switch to dolutegravir with 2 NRTIs from a suppressive therapy is a safe option for PLHIV with documented virologic failure and/or previous exposure to mono/dual NRTI therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".