Boosted Tipranavir versus Darunavir in Treatment-Experienced Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The POTENT trial compared the safety and efficacy of tipranavir/ritonavir (TPV/r) to darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r), each with an optimized background regimen (OBR) in triple-class experienced HIV-1-infected patients with resistance to more than one protease inhibitor (PI). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: POTENT was a prospective, open-label study of triple-class (PI, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NNRTI], nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTI]), treatment-experienced, HIV-positive patients. Subjects were randomized to either TPV/r (500/200 mg twice daily) or DRV/r (600/100 mg twice daily) on a genotype-guided, investigator-selected OBR. CD4+ counts and HIV viral loads were assayed at key timepoints. The primary endpoint was time to virologic failure (viral load ≥500copies/mL). POTENT was prematurely terminated due to slow enrollment. Thirty-nine patients were treated with either TPV/r (n = 19) or DRV/r (n = 20); 82% were male, 77% White, with mean age of 43.6 years. Mean baseline HIV RNA was 3.9 log(10) copies/mL. Median prior antiretrovirals was 11, with no prior raltegravir or maraviroc exposure. Raltegravir was the most common novel class agent in the OBRs (n = 14 TPV/r; n = 12 DRV/r). In both groups, patients achieved mean viral load decreases ≥2 log(10) copies/mL by week 8, and by week 12 mean CD4+ counts rose by 40-50 cells/mm3. Total observation time was 32 weeks. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 21% (TPV/r) and 25% (DRV/r) of patients. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: TPV/r- and DRV/r-based regimens showed similar short-term safety and efficacy. These data support the use of next-generation PIs such as tipranavir or darunavir with novel class antiretroviral agents (integrase inhibitors, CCR5 antagonists, or fusion inhibitors).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".