Once-Daily versus Twice-Daily Lamivudine, in Combination with Zidovudine and Efavirenz, for the Treatment of Antiretroviral-Naive Adults with HIV Infection: A Randomized Equivalence Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy controlled, multicenter trial was conducted that involved 554 antiretroviral-naive human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults (plasma HIV type 1 [HIV-1] RNA level, >or=400 copies/mL; CD4(+) cell count, >100 cells/mm(3)) and compared a 300-mg once-daily (q.d.) regimen of lamivudine (3TC) versus a 150-mg twice-daily (b.i.d.) regimen of 3TC, combined with zidovudine (300 mg b.i.d.) and efavirenz (600 mg q.d.), during a 48-week period. Treatments were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in proportions of patients achieving an HIV-1 RNA level of <400 copies/mL was within the bound of -12% to 12%. At week 48 of the study, an intent-to-treat analysis in which patients with missing data were considered to have experienced treatment failure showed that the 3TC q.d. and 3TC b.i.d. regimens were equivalent (HIV-1 RNA level <400 copies/mL, 178 [64%] of 278 vs. 174 [63%] of 276; treatment difference, 1% [95% CI, -7.1% to 8.9%]; HIV-1 RNA level <50 copies/mL, 165 [59%] of 278 vs. 168 [61%] of 276; treatment difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -9.7% to 6.6%]). Median increase above baseline in CD4(+) cell count was similar (q.d. group, +144 cells/mm(3); b.i.d. group, +146 cells/mm(3)), and the incidences of adverse events, disease progression, and HIV-associated conditions were comparable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".