Outcomes of early vs late treatment initiation in solid organ transplantation from hepatitis C virus nucleic acid test-positive donors to hepatitis C virus-uninfected recipients: Results from the HCV-TARGET study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curative hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy has increased transplantation from HCV-infected nucleic acid test-positive donors to HCV-uninfected recipients (D+/R-). We evaluated outcomes of early and late HCV treatment among D+/R- nonliver organ transplants. Patients received HCV regimens per local standard (n = 10 sites). Outcomes were compared between early and late treatments. Early treatment regimens (ETR) (n = 56) were initiated pretransplantation to day 7 posttransplant. Late treatment regimens (LTRs) (n = 102) began median 31 (range, 8-114) days posttransplant. There were 79 kidney, 50 lung, 23 heart, and 6 mixed transplants, similar between groups. HCV RNA was quantifiable in 98% of LTR versus 44.6% of ETR recipients (P < .001). Mean (range) days on treatment were 28 (7-93) ETR and 81 (51-111) LTR (P < .0001). There were no virological failures with ETR, but relapse (n = 3) and nonresponse (n = 2) in LTR (P = .16), including fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis postrelapse (n = 1). Sustained virological response was 100% (95% confidence interval, 93.4-100.0) in ETR (n = 54) and 94.9% (95% confidence interval, 88.5-98.3) in LTR (n = 98). Acute rejection occurred in 11 (19.6%) ETR and 25 (24.5%) LTR. In total, 11 HCV-unrelated deaths occurred: 8 ETR and 3 LTR. Organ transplantation from HCV-infected nucleic acid test-positive donors to HCV-uninfected recipients was safe. ETR led to fewer virological failures with shorter treatment duration, supporting recommendations to initiate treatment promptly posttransplant.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".