Comparative Efficacy of Famciclovir and Valacyclovir for Suppression of Recurrent Genital Herpes and Viral Shedding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Daily antiviral therapy with famciclovir and valacyclovir has been shown to be effective in reducing both symptomatic and asymptomatic reactivation of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) when compared to placebo. However, few comparative studies between the 2 antivirals have been performed. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical and virologic effects of famciclovir and valacyclovir administered as daily suppressive therapy for persons with genital herpes. STUDY DESIGN: Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies comparing daily famciclovir 250 mg bid with valacyclovir 500 mg qd were performed. Study 1 randomized 320 participants and compared the clinical effect of the drugs given for 16 weeks, and study 2 enrolled 70 HSV-2 seropositive subjects and compared the virologic effect of the drugs given for 10 weeks. RESULTS: In study 1, the time to first recurrence was similar in famciclovir and valacyclovir recipients, hazard ratio (HR) 1.17 (95% CI, 0.78-1.76), but time to first virologically confirmed recurrence was shorter among famciclovir recipients, HR = 2.15 (95% CI, 1.00-4.60). In study 2, HSV was detected on 3.2% of days among famciclovir recipients and 1.3% of days among valacyclovir recipients, relative risk 2.33 (95% CI, 1.18-4.89). CONCLUSION: Valacyclovir appear to be somewhat better than famciclovir for suppression of genital herpes and associated shedding. Further comparative trials of antiviral drugs for various indications should be performed as acyclovir and penciclovir appear to have different ability to abrogate HSV reactivation.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".