Vicriviroc in Combination Therapy with an Optimized Regimen for Treatment‐Experienced Subjects: 48‐Week Results of the VICTOR‐E1 Phase 2 Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Agents that block the CCR5 coreceptor for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have demonstrated potent antiretroviral activity. In early clinical studies, the CCR5 antagonist vicriviroc proved to be a safe and effective component of combination antiretroviral therapy. METHODS: This double-blind, dose-ranging, phase 2 trial randomized subjects to receive 30 mg or 20 mg of vicriviroc or placebo once daily plus re-optimized background therapy containing a protease inhibitor with ritonavir. Subjects were adults infected with CCR5-tropic HIV who were experiencing failure of triple antiretroviral regimens. The primary end point was mean change in baseline log(10) HIV RNA level at 48 weeks, based on an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen persons received vicriviroc at 30 mg (n = 39), vicriviroc at 20 mg (n =40), or placebo (n = 35). The mean change in baseline HIV RNA level at week 48 was -1.77 log(10) copies/mL for 30 mg of vicriviroc and -1.75 log(10) copies/mL for 20 mg of vicriviroc, compared with -0.79 log(10) copies/mL for placebo (P =.002 and P=.003, respectively, compared with placebo). Mean CD4 counts increased by 102, 136, and 63 cells/mm(3) for 30 mg vicriviroc, 20 mg vicriviroc, and placebo, respectively (P = .260 and P = .039, respectively, compared with placebo). Rates of adverse events (mostly mild-to-moderate) were 111.4, 112.5, and 147.4 events per 100 subject-years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Vicriviroc administered with a protease inhibitor plus ritonavir-containing regimen shows potent antiretroviral and immunologic activity sustained over 48 weeks in treatment-experienced patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00243230 .
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".