Pharmacotherapeutic Interventions in People Living With HIV Undergoing Solid Organ Transplantation: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pharmacotherapeutic management of people living with HIV (PLWHIV) undergoing solid organ transplantation (SOT) is clinically challenging, mainly due to the frequent occurrence of complex drug-drug interactions. Although various strategies have been proposed to improve treatment outcomes in these patients, several uncertainties remain, and consensus practice guidelines are just beginning to emerge. The main objective of this scoping review was to map the extent of the literature on the pharmacotherapeutic interventions performed by healthcare professionals for PLWHIV undergoing SOT. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane databases as well as gray literature for articles published between January 2010 and February 2020. Study selection was performed by at least 2 independent reviewers. Articles describing pharmacotherapeutic interventions in PLWHIV considered for or undergoing SOT were included in the study. Results: Of the 12 599 references identified through our search strategy, 209 articles met the inclusion criteria. Results showed that the vast majority of reported pharmacotherapeutic interventions concerned the management of immunosuppressive and antimicrobial therapy, including antiretrovirals. Analysis of the data demonstrated that for several aspects of the pharmacotherapeutic management of PLWHIV undergoing SOT, there were differing practices, such as the choice of immunosuppressive induction and maintenance therapy. Other important aspects of patient management, such as patient counseling, were rarely reported. Conclusions: Our results constitute an extensive overview of current practices in the pharmacotherapeutic management of SOT in PLWHIV and identify knowledge gaps that should be addressed to help improve patient care in this specific 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 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 | 0.012 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".