Enfuvirtide plasma levels and injection site reactions using a needle-free gas-powered injection system (Biojector)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the use of the Biojector B2000 needle-free gas-powered injection system for subcutaneous administration of enfuvirtide in HIV-infected patients and to compare this system with standard needles and syringes with respect to ease of use, severity of injection site reactions (ISR), and enfuvirtide plasma levels. DESIGN: An observational study among 32 treatment-experienced HIV clinic patients receiving enfuvirtide. METHODS: Adult patients were assessed before and after switching from standard needles to the Biojector for enfuvirtide administration. Patients used the Biojector for up to 24 weeks and rated ease of use from 0 (easy) to 3 (difficult). ISR were graded from 0 to 31 for signs and symptoms (erythema, induration, pruritus, nodules/cysts, ecchymosis), duration of individual lesions, and number of lesions. Plasma was collected pre-dose and 1 h post-dose for enfuvirtide measurement. The high-pressure liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry method used was specific for enfuvirtide over its known plasma metabolite. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare needle-based and Biojector outcomes. RESULTS: The Biojector was rated as being significantly easier to use (P < 0.001) and reduced the occurrence of ISR compared with standard needles (P < 0.001). Enfuvirtide plasma levels were not statistically different between the two administration methods at either pre-dose trough (P = 0.41) or 1 h post-dose (P = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: The Biojector needle-free injection system was easy to use for enfuvirtide administration and was associated with a decreased severity of ISR. Plasma enfuvirtide levels pre-dose and 1 h post-dose were comparable when injecting with standard needles or the Biojector.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".