Safety, Tolerability, and Preliminary Efficacy of 48 Weeks of Etravirine Therapy in a Phase IIb Dose‐Ranging Study Involving Treatment‐Experienced Patients with HIV‐1 Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Etravirine (ETR; also known as TMC125) is a new nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor with activity against wild-type and nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). METHODS: This randomized, phase IIb, placebo-controlled, 2-stage, dose-escalating trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of 3 twice-daily doses of ETR (experimental formulation TF035; compared with placebo), administered with an individually optimized background regimen, in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. In stage 1 of the trial, 166 patients received ETR (400 mg or 800 mg twice daily) or placebo. In stage 2 of the trial, 74 patients received ETR (800 mg or 1200 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of the regimens over 48 weeks. RESULTS: Neuropsychiatric adverse events (AEs) of interest occurred in 46.6% of patients in the combined ETR group and in 45.5% of patients in the combined placebo group (P=.89). Clinically relevant hepatic AEs occurred in 3.4% of patients who received ETR and in 6.1% of patients who received placebo (P=.47), and rash occurred in 19.5% and 12.1%, respectively (P=.25). In general, there was no evidence of a relationship between ETR dose and specific AEs. Most AEs were severity grade 1 or 2; the incidence of grade 3 or 4 AEs was comparable between groups (27.0% in the combined ETR group vs. 27.3% in the placebo group). Plasma preparation tubes were used for viral load measurement. In stage 1, there was no statistically significant difference in efficacy between ETR and placebo. In stage 2, the decrease in log10 plasma viral load between baseline and week 24 was statistically significantly greater in patients who received ETR, compared with patients who received placebo; a trend in favor of ETR persisted until week 48. CONCLUSIONS: ETR was generally safe and well tolerated during long-term administration in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients, and it had a safety profile comparable to that of placebo.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".