A Pilot Study of Abacavir/Lamivudine and Raltegravir in Antiretroviral-Naïve HIV-1–Infected Patients: 48-Week Results of the SHIELD Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: to evaluate raltegravir plus abacavir/lamivudine in antiretroviral-naïve, HIV-1-infected patients. METHODS: SHIELD is an ongoing 96-week pilot study of abacavir/lamivudine 600 mg/300 mg once daily with raltegravir 400 mg twice daily among HLA-B*5701-negative adults with screening viral load (VL) > 1,000 copies/mL. HBsAg+ patients were excluded, as were patients with key mutation(s) to any study drug. Virologic failure (VF) was defined as either VL > 400 copies/mL at week 24 or confirmed virologic rebound. RESULTS: thirty-five patients enrolled (mean age 38.7 years). Most were white males, but 26% self-identified as Hispanic/Latino. At baseline, 34% had VL ≥ 100,000 copies/mL (median, 4.8 log10 copies/mL) and 20% had CD4 cell counts <200 cells/mm3 (median, 301). One patient discontinued due to adverse events (AEs); one patient experienced VF. At week 48, 91% (32/35) had VL <50 and <400 copies/mL by missing/discontinuation equals failure analysis. Median CD4 cell count change from baseline was +247 cells/mm3. Five patients (14%) had treatment-related grade 2-4 AEs; no treatment-related serious AEs were reported. Over 48 weeks, median fasting lipids increased for total (+17%), LDL (+9%), and HDL (+6%) cholesterol but remained stable for triglycerides (-1%) and total:HDL cholesterol ratio (0%). CONCLUSIONS: in this pilot study, abacavir/lamivudine plus raltegravir was effective and generally well-tolerated over 48 weeks with modest changes in fasting lipids.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".