MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379966243 · doi:10.1002/jia2.26079

Co‐trimoxazole prophylaxis for children who are HIV‐exposed and uninfected: a systematic review

2023· review· en· W4379966243 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Catherine J. Wedderburn, Ceri Evans, Amy L. Slogrove, Andrea M. Rehman, Diana M. Gibb, Andrew J. Prendergast, Martina Penazzato

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International AIDS Society · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFogarty International CenterMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council CanadaWellcome TrustWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPediatricsMalariaMEDLINECINAHLInternal medicinePsychological interventionImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis is recommended for children born to women with HIV to protect those who acquire HIV from opportunistic infections, severe bacterial infections and malaria. With scale-up of maternal antiretroviral therapy, most children remain HIV-exposed uninfected (HEU) and the benefits of universal co-trimoxazole are uncertain. We assessed the effect of co-trimoxazole on mortality and morbidity of children who are HEU. METHODS: We performed a systematic review (PROSPERO number: CRD42021215059). We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Global Health, CINAHL Plus, Africa-Wide Information, SciELO and WHO Global Index Medicus for peer-reviewed articles from inception to 4th January 2022 without limits. Ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified through registries. We included RCTs reporting mortality or morbidity in children who are HEU receiving co-trimoxazole versus no prophylaxis/placebo. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane 2.0 tool. Data were summarized using narrative synthesis and findings were stratified by malaria endemicity. RESULTS: We screened 1257 records and included seven reports from four RCTs. Two trials from Botswana and South Africa of 4067 children who are HEU found no difference in mortality or infectious morbidity in children randomized to co-trimoxazole prophylaxis started at 2-6 weeks of age compared to those randomized to placebo or no treatment, although event rates were low. Sub-studies found that antimicrobial resistance was higher in infants receiving co-trimoxazole. Two trials in Uganda investigating prolonged co-trimoxazole after breastfeeding cessation showed protection against malaria but no other morbidity or mortality differences. All trials had some concerns or a high risk of bias, which limited the certainty of evidence. DISCUSSION: Studies show no clinical benefit of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis in children who are HEU, except to prevent malaria. Potential harms were identified for co-trimoxazole prophylaxis leading to antimicrobial resistance. The trials in non-malarial regions were conducted in populations with low mortality potentially reducing generalizability to other settings. CONCLUSIONS: In low-mortality settings with few HIV transmissions and well-performing early infant diagnosis and treatment programmes, universal co-trimoxazole may not be required.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International AIDS SocietySame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207