Evaluation of Treatment Tolerability, Satisfaction and Laboratory Parameters in HIV+ Patients Switching from Ritonavir Capsule to Tablet Formulation§
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated treatment satisfaction, gastrointestinal tolerability, depressive symptoms and alterations in laboratory parameters before and after switching from ritonavir capsule to tablet formulation. METHODS: HIV+ adults switching from ritonavir capsules to tablets were eligible for the study. The HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (HIVTSQ), Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and CES-D Depression inventory were self-administered before, and 3-4 months after switching. Results of laboratory tests within three months of each questionnaire were collected. A subset underwent plasma drug level sampling. Wilcoxon signed rank sum test was used for comparison of continuous variables and McNemar's test for dichotomised data. RESULTS: Most of the 71 participants were Caucasian men, median age 51 years. Participants were taking ritonavir in combination with either atazanavir (n=48 [67.6%]), darunavir (n=18 [25.4%]), fosamprenavir (n=3 [4.2%]) or saquinavir (n=2 [2.8%]). In general after the switch to tablets, participants reported improved treatment satisfaction (median [interquartile range] HIVTSQ score 53/60 [48, 58] after vs 49/60 [45, 54] before, p <0.001), fewer gastrointestinal symptoms (GSRS score 4/45 [1, 9] vs 5/45 [3,13], p < 0.001) and had higher HDL cholesterol (1.22 mmol/L [1.07, 1.45] vs 1.09 mmol/L [0.90,1.32], p = 0.003) and lower total cholesterol/HDL ratio (3.82 [3.05, 4.40] vs 4.23 [3.45, 4.84], p<0.001). There were no significant changes in plasma viral load, CD4 counts, depression scores, or atazanavir or ritonavir trough levels. CONCLUSION: Results of this study suggest that the newer tablet formulation of ritonavir is better tolerated and has fewer gastrointestinal side effects than the older capsule formulation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".