Impact of adherence on duration of virological suppression among patients receiving combination antiretroviral therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of adherence to antiretroviral therapy on the duration of virological suppression after controlling for whether or not the patient ever attained a plasma viral load below the limit of detection of sensitive HIV-1 RNA assays. METHODS: Data were combined from three randomized, blinded clinical trials (INCAS, AVANTI-2, and AVANTI-3) that compared the antiviral effects of two- and three-drug antiretroviral regimens. Virological suppression was defined as maintaining a plasma viral load below 1000 copies/mL. Adherence was defined prospectively and measured by patient self-report. RESULTS: Adherence did not have a major impact on the probability of achieving virological suppression for patients receiving dual therapy. However, for patients receiving triple therapy, adherence increased the probability of virological suppression, whether the plasma viral load nadir was above or below the lower limit of quantification. Compared to adherent patients with a plasma viral load nadir below the lower limit of quantification, the relative risk of virological failure was 3.0 for non-adherent patients with a nadir below the limit, 18.1 for adherent patients with a nadir above the limit, and 32.1 for non-adherent patients with a nadir above the limit. CONCLUSION: For patients receiving current three-drug antiretroviral regimens, adherence to therapy and plasma viral load nadir are important factors determining the duration of virological suppression.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".