Molecular Evaluation of HIV-1 HAART Efficacy, Comparison of TDF+3TC+EFV and AZT+3TC+NVP Regimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The UNAIDS goal of ending the HIV epidemic by 2030 will be achieved primarily through the success of the three “95s” by 2030, and in particular the third “95 », which consists of achieving an undetectable viral load thanks to effective antiretroviral treatment. Achieving and maintaining viral suppression is the goal of ART and a good knowledge of the effectiveness of triple ARV therapies can help national HIV programs. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of the two ARTs, Tenovofir + Lamivudine +Efavirenz (TDF+3TC+EFV) and Zidovudine+Lamivudine+ Efavirenz (AZT+3TC+NVP) in their abilities to make the plasma viral load of HIV+ patients under treatment undetectable. Material and method: This is a retrospective study of the management of HIV-1 seropositive patients, followed at the Military Hospital of Ouakam (HMO) Molecular Biology laboratory from 2014 to 2021. The main criterion for evaluating the effectiveness of the treatment was the proportions of patients whose Viral load values were undetectable, VL< 50 copies/ml depending on duration of antiretroviral therapy (ART). Plasma viral load tests were carried out on Abbott Real Time HIV-1® (m2000sp/rt) and COBAS®AmpliPrep/COBAS®TaqMan® (Roche) version 2.0. Variables with p<0.05 were considered statistically significant for all comparisons between groups. Results: 3,335 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 2,078 on TDF+3TC+EFV, 445 on AZT+3TC+NVP and 812 were excluded due to death, transfer or loss to follow-up. At 6 months of ART, VL was undetectable in 7.3% of patients on TDF+3TC+EFV and 6.7% of patients on AZT+3TC+NVP (P=0.67). 78.2% versus 73.4% of patients had an undetectable VL respectively for TDF+3TC+EFV and AZT+3TC+NVP at 12 months of ART (p=0.03). TDF+3TC+EFV had significantly higher virological success rates than AZT+3TC+NVP (85.7% versus 80.2%) and virological failure (VL>1000 copies/ml) was significantly greater in patients taking AZT+3TC+NVP (13% versus 7.2%) after 18 months (P=0.001). Gender and age had a significant relationship in treatment success. Conclusion: TDF+3TC+EFV was superior in terms of virological suppression at the end of the study period. These results support the WHO recommendation to use TDF+3TD+EFV as an alternative first-line regimen.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".