Once-a-Day (QD) vs Twice-Daily (BID) Nevirapine as Simplification in PITreated Patients After 2 mos. of BID Induction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the efficacy and the tolerability of once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) nevirapine (NVP)-based highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in virologically suppressed, HIV-positive patients switched from protease inhibitor (PI)-based HAART. Eligible patients were enrolled in the multicenter trial if HIV RNA levels were <50 copies/mL for ³6 months prior. Patients were switched from a PI to NVP 200 mg BID for 2 months, and then randomized to continue with that regimen (group A) or NVP 400 mg QD (group B) for a further 10 months. Virological efficacy (primary endpoint) and tolerability/toxicity were evaluated according to an intention-to-treat analysis. A total of 126 patients (63 per group) were enrolled. Withdrawals from the study (any reason) numbered 15 in group A and 14 in B, virological failures numbered 5 and 2, respectively, and there were 4 cases of adverse events in each group (all p = NS). Mean alanine aminotransaminase (ALT) and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (γ-GT) level increases were significant for the whole cohort (33.2±22.9 to 43.3±29.1, p < 0.001; 57.3±72 to 109±131 U/L, p < 0.0002, respectively), but there were no differences between the two groups. Apparently, no significant differences between the QD and BID NVP groups were found, in terms of virological failures or tolerability/toxicity. The switch to NVP may be safely pursued with a QD schedule.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 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".