Characterizing risk behaviour and reinfection rates for successful programs to engage core transmitters in HCV elimination (C-RESPECT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Development of robust treatment programs among core transmitters (CT) of hepatitis C virus (HCV) are needed, including strategies to address reinfection risk. The aim of this study was to describe the effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment in CT versus non-CT populations and assess reinfection rates after successful treatment. METHODS: Characterizing Risk Behaviour and Reinfection Rates for Successful Programs to Engage Core Transmitters in HCV Elimination (C-RESPECT) was a prospective, observational study of HCV-infected Canadian adult patients (genotypes 1, 3, and 4) treated with DAAs between 2017 and 2020. RESULTS: The full analysis set included 429 participants (259 CT, 170 non-CT). Key differences were observed in baseline profiles: CT participants were younger (mean 42.3 [SD 11.2] y versus 55.0 [SD 11.1] y, respectively) and reported higher rates of social assistance (35.7% versus 14.8%), smoking (83.7% versus 52.4%), low socioeconomic status (yearly income <$15,000: 69.6% versus 43.9%), illicit drug use (83.7% versus 34.3%), and previous incarcerations (62.7% versus 36.9%). DAA treatment adherence was similar; 93 .5% versus 98.3% of CT versus non-CT participants completed the assigned treatment duration. Cure rates (sustained virologic response) were comparable, ranging from 94.9% to 98.1%. All reinfections were among CT participants, with a rate of 13.8/100 person-years (95% CI 9.2-20.8) with mean time to reinfection of 24.6 (SD 0.6) months. CONCLUSIONS: CT and non-CT participants respond equally well to DAA treatment; however, with some reinfections among CT participants. Innovative multidisciplinary programs must be developed to mitigate this risk in this key population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".