Retention in Care, Mortality, Loss-to-Follow-Up, and Viral Suppression among Antiretroviral Treatment-Naïve and Experienced Persons Participating in a Nationally Representative HIV Pre-Treatment Drug Resistance Survey in Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe associations of pretreatment drug resistance (PDR) with clinical outcomes such as remaining in care, loss to follow-up (LTFU), viral suppression, and death in Mexico, in real-life clinical settings. We analyzed clinical outcomes after a two-year follow up period in participants of a large 2017–2018 nationally representative PDR survey cross-referenced with information of the national ministry of health HIV database. Participants were stratified according to prior ART exposure and presence of efavirenz/nevirapine PDR. Using a Fine-Gray model, we evaluated virological suppression among resistant patients, in a context of competing risk with lost to follow-up and death. A total of 1823 participants were followed-up by a median of 1.88 years (Interquartile Range (IQR): 1.59–2.02): 20 (1%) were classified as experienced + resistant; 165 (9%) naïve + resistant; 211 (11%) experienced + non-resistant; and 1427 (78%) as naïve + non-resistant. Being ART-experienced was associated with a lower probability of remaining in care (adjusted Hazard Ratio(aHR) = 0.68, 0.53–0.86, for the non-resistant group and aHR = 0.37, 0.17–0.84, for the resistant group, compared to the naïve + non-resistant group). Heterosexual cisgender women compared to men who have sex with men [MSM], had a lower viral suppression (aHR = 0.84, 0.70–1.01, p = 0.06) ART-experienced persons with NNRTI-PDR showed the worst clinical outcomes. This group was enriched with women and persons with lower education and unemployed, which suggests higher levels of social vulnerability.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".