Predictors of adherence and virologic outcome in HIV-infected patients treated with abacavir- or indinavir-based triple combination HAART also containing lamivudine/zidovudine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare dosing convenience and adherence with abacavir (ABC) 300 mg plus a fixed-dose lamivudine 150 mg/zidovudine 300 mg combination tablet (COM) twice daily versus indinavir (IDV) plus COM twice daily in treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected adults; and to evaluate the association among difficulty taking antiretroviral regimens, adherence, and virologic efficacy. METHODS: An open-label, randomized, multicenter, international study compared the COM/ABC and IDV/COM regimens with respect to self-reported adherence and regimen convenience over 48 weeks. Logistic regression analysis (LRA) was done on a patient sub-sample from both groups to evaluate predictors of adherence and virologic response at last time-point on randomized therapy (LTORT). RESULTS: The study population was diverse with respect to ethnicity (38% Asian, 27% Hispanic, 28% white, 3% black, 4% other) and gender (39% women, 61% men). Baseline median HIV-1 RNA was 4.80 log(10) copies/mL and CD4+ cell count was 315 cells/mm(3). Of 329 patients who were randomized and received treatment, 315 (96%) provided adherence data. Significantly more patients in the ABC/COM group than in the IDV/COM group reported > or = 95% adherence to therapy (76 vs 58%, p < 0.001) and no difficulty in taking their regimen (91 vs 61%, p < 0.001). In both groups, the highest probability of HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/mL occurred when median adherence was > or = 95%. The probability of HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/mL declined more rapidly in the IDV/COM group as adherence rates decreased. LRA showed that no difficulty taking any of the drugs in the regimen, ABC/COM treatment group, and male gender were independent significant predictors of > or = 95% adherence (p < 0.05). Median adherence and baseline HIV-1 RNA were significant predictors of HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/mL (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported greater ease of use and superior adherence to ABC/COM than IDV/COM. Patient-reported difficulty taking drugs in a regimen was predictive of reduced adherence, and both of the latter factors were predictive of poorer virologic outcome. Adherence levels of > or = 95% in both treatment groups maximized the probability of patients achieving an HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/mL.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".