Abacavir/Lamivudine Fixed-Dose Combination With Ritonavir-Boosted Darunavir: A Safe and Efficacious Regimen for HIV Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current treatment guidelines recommend the use of tenofovir (TDF) and emtricitabine (FTC) along with a third agent to treat HIV-positive adults. However, other treatment options, including the use of abacavir (ABC) and lamivudine (3TC) when used with ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV/r), have rarely been studied. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the coformulation of ABC/3TC administered with DRV/r in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients. METHODS: HIV-infected adults who received an open-label combination of ABC/3TC/ DRV/r were followed in a community clinic in Montréal. Patients had no resistance to any of the compounds in their regimen. Viral load (VL), CD4 cell count, AST, ALT, and creatinine levels were examined throughout the 48 weeks of follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients with a mean age of 45 years were enrolled. Two did not return for follow-up and were excluded. Thirty-five (52%) were treatment- experienced and the remaining were treatment-naïve. HLA-B*5701 test results were available for 56 patients and none were positive. At baseline, mean VL was 4.8 log for treatment-naïve and 2.3 log for experienced patients. Twelve patients discontinued the study regimen prior to reaching the endpoint. At week 48, 79% had a VL <50. Median CD4 cell gain was higher among treatment-naïve patients (273 cells) than among treatment-experienced patients (102 cells) (P = .002). No patient experienced any grade 2 or higher liver enzyme elevation throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: The new combination of ABC/3TC/DRV/r demonstrates a high rate of antiviral activity with no major toxicity. The drug combination appears to be generally safe and well tolerated.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".