Nelfinavir and Non‐Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor‐Based Salvage Regimes in Heavily Hiv Pretreated Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of nelfinavir mesylate (NFV) in combination with delavirdine mesylate (DLV) or efavirenz (EFV) and other antiretroviral agents following virological failure on other protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimens. DESIGN: Multicentre, retrospective chart review. METHODS: One hundred-one patients who were naive to both NFV and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and who initiated NFV plus DLV or EFV-based salvage regimens were reviewed. Response to treatment was defined as a reduction in HIV ribonucleic acid (RNA) levels to unquantifiable levels (less than 50 copies/mL, less than 400 copies/mL, less than 500 copies/mL) on at least one occasion after the initiation of salvage therapy. Baseline correlates of response, including prior duration of HIV infection, prior number of regimens, viral load and CD4 cell counts were also evaluated. RESULTS: Patients had a mean duration of HIV infection of 10 years, a mean duration of prior therapy of four years, a median of four prior nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and a median of two prior PIs. At the time of review the mean duration of salvage therapy was 63.4 weeks. Virological suppression was achieved in 59 (58.4%) patients within a mean of eight weeks and maintained for a mean of 44.9 weeks (the mean follow-up was 78 weeks). Of the non-responders, 16 (38%) achieved a less than 1 log(10) decrease in HIV RNA levels. Although there was no association between baseline correlates, response rate (75.7%) was significantly higher in patients with HIV RNA levels of 50,000 copies/mL or lower and CD4 counts greater than 200 cells/mm(3). CONCLUSION: NFV/NNRTI-based highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens are an effective therapy in many patients who have experienced virological breakthroughs on at least one prior PI-based regimen.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".