Phase II Study of Vicriviroc versus Efavirenz (both with Zidovudine/Lamivudine) in Treatment‐Naive Subjects with HIV‐1 Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vicriviroc (VCV) is a CCR5 antagonist with nanomolar activity against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) replication in vitro and in vivo. We report the results of a phase II dose-finding study of VCV plus dual nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in the treatment-naive HIV-1-infected subjects. METHODS: This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that began with a 14-day comparison of 3 dosages of VCV with placebo in treatment-naive subjects infected with CCR5-using HIV-1. After 14 days of monotherapy, lamivudine/zidovudine was added to the VCV arms; subjects receiving placebo were treated with efavirenz and lamivudine/zidovudine; the planned treatment duration was 48 weeks. RESULTS: Ninety-two subjects enrolled. After 14 days of once-daily monotherapy, the mean viral loads decreased from baseline values by 0.07 log(10) copies/mL in the placebo arm, 0.93 log(10) copies/mL in the VCV 25 mg arm, 1.18 log(10) copies/mL in the VCV 50 mg arm, and 1.34 log(10) copies/mL in the VCV 75 mg arm (P < .001 for each VCV arm vs. the placebo arm). The combination-therapy portion of the study was stopped because of increased rates of virologic failure in the VCV 25 mg/day arm (relative hazard [RH], 21.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-168.9) and the VCV 50 mg/day arm (RH, 11.7; 95% CI, 1.5-92.9), compared with that in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: VCV administered with dual NRTIs in treatment-naive subjects with HIV-1 infection had increased rates of virologic failure, compared with efavirenz plus dual NRTIs. No treatment-limiting toxicity was observed. Study of higher doses of VCV as part of combination therapy is warranted.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".