A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Structured Treatment Interruption in HIV-Infected Patients Failing Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (Canadian HIV Trials Network Study 164)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine prospectively the impact of switching treatment-experienced patients with virologic failure to a salvage regimen with or without a 12-week structured treatment interruption (STI). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a 3-month sustained HIV RNA level <50 copies/mL. METHODS: A randomized, open-label, multicenter trial. At least 2 new antiretroviral (ARV) drugs, based on patient history, were included in the salvage regimen, as determined before randomization and guided by resistance testing. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients were randomized: 79 to the immediate switch (IS) arm and 68 to the STI arm. Success was achieved by 64% in the IS arm and 51% in the STI arm (95% confidence interval for the difference from 5% in favor of STI to 30% in favor of IS). During the STI, the median decrease in CD4 count was 80 cells/mm and the increase in viral load was 0.8 log10 copies/mL. There were no differences in median CD4 cell counts or HIV RNA levels at week 60. Two unrelated deaths (1 in each arm) and 3 AIDS-defining events (in the STI arm) occurred. CONCLUSION: A 12-week STI before the initiation of salvage ARV therapy did not increase the proportion of patients with 3 months of sustained suppression of HIV RNA to <50 copies/mL.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".