Antiviral activity and safety of aplaviroc, a CCR5 antagonist, in combination with lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV‐infected, therapy‐naïve patients: results of the EPIC study (CCR100136)<sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This phase IIb study explored the antiviral activity and safety of the investigational CC chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) antagonist aplaviroc (APL) in antiretroviral-naïve patients harbouring R5- or R5X4-tropic virus. METHODS: A total of 191 patients were randomized 2:2:2:1 to one of three APL dosing regimens or to lamivudine (3TC)/zidovudine (ZDV) twice daily (bid), each in combination with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 400 mg/100 mg bid. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed. RESULTS: This study was terminated prematurely because of APL-associated idiosyncratic hepatotoxicity. A total of 141 patients initiated treatment early enough to have been able to complete 12 weeks on treatment [modified intent-to-treat (M-ITT) population]; of these, 133 completed the 12-week treatment phase. The proportion of subjects in the M-ITT population with HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/mL at week 12 was 50, 48, 54 and 75% in the APL 200 mg bid, APL 400 mg bid, APL 800 mg once a day (qd) and 3TC/ZDV arms, respectively. Similar responses were seen in the few subjects harbouring R5X4-tropic virus (n=17). Common clinical adverse events (AEs) were diarrhoea, nausea, fatigue and headache. APL demonstrated nonlinear pharmacokinetics with high interpatient variability. CONCLUSIONS: While target plasma concentrations of APL were achieved, the antiviral activity of APL+LPV/r did not appear to be comparable to that of 3TC/ZDV+LPV/r.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".