Tolerability and Efficacy of PI Versus NNRTI-Based Regimens in Subjects Receiving HAART During Acute or Early HIV Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about modifications to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) initiated during acute or early HIV infection. METHODS: Reasons for first modifications of HAART regimens were recorded using the AIDS Clinical Trials Group form among 363 subjects who initiated HAART within 1 year of seroconversion from 2005 in the Acute Infection and Early Disease Research Program. Modifications recorded as due to "patient choice" or "physician choice" were clarified by query to the recording site. Times to events were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methods; significance of differences was assessed by the log-rank test. RESULTS: Two hundred five of 363 (56%) subjects modified therapy, at a median of 425 days after initiation, by changing drugs, discontinuing treatment, or removing or adding drugs. Most modifications were attributed to toxicity (n = 105, 51%), most of which was low grade; regimen simplification (n = 18, 5%); and achievement of viral suppression (n = 15, 7%). Time to first modification was shorter for those with shorter time from infection to initiation (P = 0.005) and those having higher CD4 lymphocyte count at initiation (P = 0.06). Modifications occurred sooner in subjects receiving regimens taken more than once daily (P < 0.001) or with more than 2 pills daily (P < 0.001). Most regimens were nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor based or protease inhibitor based, and these did not differ significantly in rate and timing of modification. CONCLUSIONS: HAART initiated early in HIV infection was modified in the majority of cases, usually due to minor toxicities whose incidence was similar for protease inhibitor-based and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based regimens. Convenience of regimens (lower pill burden and dosing frequency) was associated with a lower rate of modification.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".