MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321770339 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280339

Renal impairment associated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for antiretroviral therapy and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: An observational cohort study

2023· article· en· W4321770339 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jack E. Heron, Hamish McManus, Tobias Vickers, Kathleen E. Ryan, Edwina Wright, Allison Carter, Mark Stoové, Jason Asselin, Andrew E. Grulich, Basil Donovan, Rebecca Guy, Rick Varma, Marcus Y. Chen, Nathan Ryder, David A. Lewis, David J. Templeton, Catherine OʼConnor, David M. Gracey

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNSW Ministry of HealthDepartment of Health, Government of Western AustraliaDepartment of Health and Aged Care, Australian GovernmentMcGill UniversityAustralian GovernmentDepartment of Health, State Government of VictoriaUniversity of New South WalesBurnet Institute
KeywordsTenofovirPre-exposure prophylaxisMedicineObservational studyAntiretroviral therapyCohort studyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)CohortInternal medicineVirologyViral loadMen who have sex with men

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is associated with adverse renal outcomes when prescribed for HIV infection. There are few data concerning real-world renal outcomes amongst patients prescribed TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data were extracted from 52 sexual health clinics across Australia from 2009-2019. All patients prescribed TDF-containing antiretroviral therapy and PrEP were included. Rates of renal impairment (a fall in eGFR to <60 ml/min/1·73m2) were calculated for people living with HIV (PLWHIV) prescribed TDF and HIV negative PrEP-users. Risk factors were assessed using Cox-proportional hazards models. Sensitivity analysis of risk using 1:1 propensity-score matching to adjust for potential imbalance in HIV and PrEP cohorts was conducted. 5,973 patients on PrEP and 1,973 PLWHIV were included. There were 39 (0.7%) instances of renal impairment in the PrEP group and 81 (4.1%) in the PLWHIV cohort (hazard ratio [HR]:0.35 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-0.56). Rates of renal impairment were 4.01/1000 person-years (95%CI:2.93-5.48) in the PrEP cohort and 16.18/1000 person-years (95%CI:13.01-20.11) in the PLWHIV cohort (p<0.001). Predictors of renal impairment were: older age (40-49 years (HR:5.09 95%CI: 2.12-12.17) and 50-82 years (HR:13.69 95%CI: 5.92-31.67) (compared with 30-39 years) and baseline eGFR<90ml/min (HR:61.19 95%CI: 19.27-194.30). After adjusting for age and baseline eGFR the rate of renal impairment remained lower in the PrEP cohort (aHR:0.62 95%CI: 0.40-0.94, p = 0.023). In propensity-matched analysis using 1,622 patients per cohort the risk of renal impairment remained higher in the PLWHIV cohort (log-rank p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients prescribed TDF-based PrEP had lower rates of renal impairment than patients prescribed TDF for HIV infection. In propensity analysis, after matching for some risk factors, rates of renal impairment remained higher amongst patients with HIV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207