Prescribing patterns of antiretroviral treatments during pregnancy for women living with <scp>HIV</scp> in Canada 2004–2020: A surveillance study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While treatment guidelines for HIV in adults have evolved rapidly with the advent of new antiretroviral (ARV) treatment, those for the prevention of vertical HIV transmission in pregnancy have evolved more slowly due to safety and efficacy concerns. Here we describe Canadian prescribing patterns for ARV treatments during pregnancy and compare them to perinatal HIV prescribing guidelines of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), that are commonly used in Canada and include recommendations for newly commercialized therapies. METHODS: The Canadian Perinatal HIV Surveillance Program (CPHSP) captures annual medical data on mothers living with HIV and their infants from 23 sites across Canada. Women from this cohort who received an ARV treatment during pregnancy and who gave birth between 2004 and 2020 were included in the study. ARV treatments were designated as 'preferred/alternative' as per HHS HIV perinatal guidelines, or 'other than preferred/alternative'. RESULTS: We identified 3673 pregnancies from 2720 women. The proportion of women that conceived while on ARV treatment increased from 29% in 2003 to 90% in 2020. Other than preferred/alternative ARV treatments were received in 1112 (30%) of pregnancies and this was significantly associated with having initiated ARV treatment before conception. CONCLUSION: In Canada during the study period, a high number of women were prescribed an other than preferred/alternative ARV treatment during pregnancy. Further optimization of ARV treatment in women of childbearing age living with HIV is warranted.
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) | 0.001 | 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".