Risks and benefits of replacing protease inhibitors by nevirapine in HIV-infected subjects under long-term successful triple combination therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the safety and efficacy of replacing the protease inhibitor (PI) by nevirapine (NVP) in subjects experiencing a long-term control of virus replication under a triple PI-containing antiretroviral combination. DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of 138 HIV-positive subjects with plasma viral load below 50 HIV-RNA copies/ml for the last 6 months under a triple PI-containing regimen, who were randomly assigned to either replace the PI by NVP (n = 104) or continue on the same treatment (n = 34). METHODS: Viral load, CD4 count, lipid profile, body-shape features, and quality of life parameters were all assessed at the time of randomization and every 3 months thereafter. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, a rebound in viral load occurred in 11% of subjects during the first 6 months after replacing the PI by NVP, whereas it appeared in 29% of those who remained on PI (P = 0.007). Treatment failure was related to lack of adherence in 90% of subjects on PI, but only in 22% of those receiving NVP (P = 0.006). The CD4 cell count outcome did not differ significantly comparing both groups at 6 months, although in patients receiving NVP an average reduction of 35 x 10(6) cells/l was observed, whereas in those on PI a positive trend was still recorded (+54 x 10(6) cells/l). At the time of randomization, 77.5 and 57.5% of subjects had cholesterol and triglyceride values above 200 mg/dl, respectively. No significant changes in the lipid profile were observed in any of the groups thereafter. Body-shape abnormalities were recorded in 70% of persons at the time of randomization, and partially reversed at 6 months in 50% of subjects who replaced the PI by NVP. A quality of life score recorded a significant improvement in subjects who switched to NVP compared with those who continued on PI. CONCLUSIONS: The replacement of PI by NVP seems to be safe both virologically and immunologically, provides a significant improvement in the quality of life and in half of patients ameliorate lipodystrophic body-shape changes at 6 months, although serum lipid abnormalities still remain unmodified.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".