The impact of initial highly active antiretroviral therapy on future treatment sequences in HIV infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the initial use of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) or protease inhibitors (PI) differentially influences subsequent HIV therapy. DESIGN: A cohort study using a prospective clinical database in a university-based HIV clinic. SUBJECTS: A total of 440 HIV-seropositive patients, naive or nucleoside experienced, initiating therapy with either an NNRTI or PI between January 1998 and July 2003 and followed to December 2003. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time until stopping the first regimen and until exposure to all antiretroviral classes (excluding tenofovir and enfuvirtide) according to the type of initial regimen. RESULTS: A total of 291 subjects initiated HAART with PI and 149 with NNRTI; median follow-up 3.1 and 2.3 years, respectively. Subjects starting NNRTI remained on their initial regimens longer (median time to change 2.1 versus 1.6 years; log rank P = 0.03). Overall, subjects initiating NNRTI-based regimens were less likely to alter their therapy. Previous nucleoside exposure was an important predictor of treatment modification. Subjects initiating NNRTI-based HAART were also less likely to experience virological failure than those initiating PI-based HAART. Individuals starting with NNRTI were exposed to fewer regimens (15 versus 25% received three or fewer regimens), and showed a trend towards lower rates of three-class exposure (7 versus 12%). CONCLUSION: There is a high rate of treatment modification among patients initiating HAART. The initial use of NNRTI-based HAART was associated with more durable treatment and lower rates of virological failure, which may translate into a reduced need for multiple salvage therapies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".