Back

A Retroactive Study on Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Treatment for Tuberculosis Patients with HIV: based on the data from 2010 to 2020 in Shanghai, China

Dong, C.; Zhang, R.; Li, S.; Chen, J.; Liu, Y.; Xia, X.; Liu, G.; Shen, Y.; Liu, L.; Zeng, L.

2023-12-29 hiv aids
10.1101/2023.12.27.23300538 medRxiv
Show abstract

At present, the factors influencing Tuberculosis (TB) treatment effectiveness in HIV/TB co-infected patients need to be supported by more substantial real-world evidence. A retrospective study is conducted to fill the vacancy. 461 TB patients with HIV are defined as 742 samples according to each TB detection period. 7788 valid treatment records corresponding to 17 drug compositions for TB and 150 clinical indicators with more than 100 records are used to conduct data mining with consensus clustering, Fishers exact test, stratified analysis, and three modeling approaches, including logistic regression, support vector machine, and random forest. We find that A CD4+ T cell count of 42 cells per L may serve as a sensitive classification standard for the immune level to assist in evaluating or predicting the efficacy of TB (P=0.007); Rifabutin and levofloxacin alone or in combination may be more effective than other first- and second-line anti-TB agents in combination (P=0.037); Samples with low immune levels (CD4[less double equals]42) may be more resistant to first-line TB drugs (P=0.049); Age (P=0.015), bicarbonate radical (P=0.007), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P=0.026), pre-treatment CD8+ T cell count (P=0.015, age<60, male), neutrophil percentage (P=0.033, age<60), rifabutin (P=0.010, age<60), and cycloserine (P=0.027, age<60) may influence the TB treatment effectiveness; More evidence is needed to support the relationship between pre-treatment clinical indicators or drug regimens and TB treatment effectiveness (The best AUC is 0.560[~]0.763); The percentage of lymphocytes (P=0.028) can be used as an effective TB therapeutic target. These perspectives supplement knowledge in relevant clinical aspects.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 4%
31.1%
2
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.1%
3
Infectious Diseases of Poverty
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Frontiers in Microbiology
427 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.8%
5
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.3%
6
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
7
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.4%
8
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.4%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.1%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.1%
11
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
12
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
13
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
14
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Annals of Translational Medicine
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
16
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
17
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.0%
18
Health Science Reports
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
109 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Journal of Medical Virology
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
22
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
23
Current Microbiology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
24
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
187 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%