Directly Observed Therapy for the Management of HIV-Infected Patients in a Methadone Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this prospective, observational clinical study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of once-daily and twice-daily directly observed therapy (DOT) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients undergoing methadone treatment. Methadone and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) were dispensed daily as DOT, with patients in the twice-daily HAART group self-administering the second dose. Clinical and laboratory end points were monitored, along with the impact of ongoing cocaine use. We studied 54 patients coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus. At baseline, the median virus load was 111,000 copies/mL, and the median CD4+ cell count was 165 cells/mm3. After a median of 24 months, 17 of 29 patients in the once-daily HAART group and 18 of 25 in the twice-daily HAART group had virus loads of <400 copies/mL, regardless of ongoing cocaine use. Thirty-two patients required methadone dose adjustment, which was managed without modification of HAART. Treatment-limiting hepatic toxicity was rare. A DOT program of coadministered methadone and HAART can be implemented with good results, even for patients who continue to use cocaine.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".