MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex-Based Outcomes of Darunavir–Ritonavir Therapy

2010· article· en· W2005214630 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Judith S. Currier

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsMedicineDarunavirRitonavirInternal medicineRegimenAdverse effectViral loadConfidence intervalLogistic regressionClinical trialHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Antiretroviral therapyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Women account for an increasing proportion of patients with HIV-1 but remain underrepresented in antiretroviral clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sex-based differences in efficacy and adverse events in treatment-experienced, HIV-positive women and men receiving darunavir-ritonavir therapy over 48 weeks. DESIGN: Multicenter, open-label, phase 3b study designed to enroll a high proportion of women, with sample size determined on the basis of a noninferiority design with a maximum allowable difference of 15% in virologic response favoring men. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00381303) SETTING: 65 sites in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada. PATIENTS: 287 women and 142 men. INTERVENTION: Patients received darunavir-ritonavir, 600/100 mg twice daily, plus an investigator-selected optimized background regimen. MEASUREMENTS: Virologic response (HIV RNA <50 copies/mL using a time-to-loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) and adverse events were assessed over 48 weeks. RESULTS: 67% of patients were women; 84% of patients were black or Hispanic. A higher proportion of women discontinued treatment than men (32.8% vs. 23.2%; P = 0.042); more women than men discontinued treatment for reasons other than virologic failure. Response rates in women and men at week 48 were 50.9% and 58.5%, respectively (intention-to-treat TLOVR), and 73.0% and 73.5%, respectively (TLOVR censored for patients who withdrew for reasons other than virologic failure). The absolute difference in response, based on logistic regression and adjusted for baseline log(10) viral load and CD4(+) cell count, was -9.6 percentage points (95% CI, -19.9 to 0.7 percentage points; P = 0.067) for intention-to-treat TLOVR and -3.9 percentage points (CI, -13.9 to 6.0 percentage points; P = 0.438) for TLOVR population that censored patients who withdrew for reasons other than virologic failure. Adverse events were similar between the sexes. The most common grade 2 to 4 adverse events that were considered at least possibly treatment related in women and men were nausea (5.2% and 2.8%, respectively), diarrhea (4.5% and 4.9%, respectively), and rash (2.1% and 2.8%, respectively). LIMITATION: Baseline characteristics differed between sexes. CONCLUSION: Nonsignificant, sex-based differences in response were found during the 48-week study; however, these differences were probably due to higher discontinuation rates in women, suggesting that additional efforts are needed to retain women in clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207