Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Fosamprenavir plus Ritonavir Versus Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Combination with Abacavir/Lamivudine over 144 Weeks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The KLEAN study extension assessed the long-term efficacy and safety of fosamprenavir-ritonavir (FPV/r) and lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r), both administered with abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) fixed dose combination, over 144 weeks. METHODS: KLEAN was an open-label, noninferiority study that randomised antiretroviral-naïve patients to FPV/r twice daily (bid) or LPV/r bid with ABC/3TC once daily (qd). Patients with a viral load of <400 copies/mL at Week 48 were eligible to participate in the KLEAN study extension (up to 144 weeks) and continued with their previously randomised therapy. RESULTS: The KLEAN study extension (48 to 144 weeks) randomized 199 patients. The proportion of TLOVR responders (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL) at Week 144 was 73% and 60% in the FPV/r and LPV/r arms, respectively. The proportion of TLOVR responders (<50 copies/mL) was the same irrespective of baseline HIV-1 RNA (>100,000 or 100,000 copies/mL). The Week 144 median (interquartile range) change from baseline CD4+ cell count was 300 (236-433) cells/mm3 and 335 (225-444) cells/mm3 in the FPV/r and LPV/r arms, respectively. Diarrhea was the most frequently reported adverse event. A small proportion of patients (FPV/r, 13%; LPV/r, 9%) discontinued study medication due to adverse events. Three patients (FPV/r, 1; LPV/r, 2) experienced virological failure between Week 48 and Week 144. CONCLUSION: The findings of the KLEAN study extension (48 to 144 weeks) support durable viral suppression with both FPV/r and LPV/r treatment regimens when used in combination with ABC/3TC irrespective of viral load at baseline. Both regimens were well tolerated and had similar safety profiles.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".