Randomized Controlled Trial of Once-Daily Tenofovir, Lamivudine, and Lopinavir/Ritonavir Versus Remaining on the Same Regimen in Virologically Suppressed HIV-Infected Patients on Their First PI-Containing HAART Regimen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the effects of switching to once-daily (QD) lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based combination therapy in HIV-infected patients who are virologically suppressed (HIV viral load <50 copies/mL) on their first protease inhibitor (PI)-containing regimen. METHOD: In this 48-week, prospective, open-label, randomized study, patients were either switched to once-daily LPV/r, tenofovir (TDF), and lamivudine (3TC) (QD arm) or remained on their existing regimen (control arm). The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of patients maintaining virologic suppression following 48 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Fifty and 22 patients were randomized to the QD and control arms, respectively. At week 48, there was no significant difference in virological suppression between the QD and control arms using intent-to-treat (missing = failure) analysis (p = .44). There was no significant difference in discontinuation rates between the two arms (p = .66). Significantly more patients randomized to the QD arm reported gastrointestinal adverse events compared with the control arm (p = .009). There were no study drug-related serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: For patients who are already virologically suppressed on their first PI-containing regimen, switching to a QD regimen of TDF+3TC+LPV/r resulted in similar rates of virologic suppression when compared with staying on existing therapy.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".