Response to a Protease‐Inhibitor (Ritonavir)‐Containing Combination Antiretroviral Regimen in HIV‐Infected Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The number of antiretroviral agents available for children who are failing existing therapy is limited. Data are lacking on the use of various combination regimens and the resulting viral load dynamics in such children. METHODS: Between March 1998 and March 2000, HIV-infected children younger than 18 years of age were studied in an open trial. The study regimen included ritonavir, with at least two drugs to which the virus was known or presumed to be sensitive. Subjects were ritonavir-naive and were included if they had high viral loads while receiving antiretroviral therapy. Patients had clinical assessments, CD4 counts and viral load monitoring. RESULTS: Fifteen antiretroviral-experienced HIV-infected children were enrolled. Approximately 87% (13 of 15) had perinatally-acquired HIV; median age was 7.9 years (range 1.6 to 14.8). At enrolment, the median CD4 count was 557 cells/mm(3) (range 57 to 1702) and the median viral load was 72,600 copies/mL (range 3626 to 796,440). The majority of children (73.3%) had increases in CD4 counts within 12 weeks. During this period, the median increase in CD4 counts over baseline was 30.0%. Approximately 73% (eight of 11) of subjects with initial improvements in CD4 counts had sustained increases at 32 to 48 weeks. Over the first 12 weeks, 60% (nine of 15) had greater than 0.5 log(10) decreases in viral load. The improvement was sustained in 88.9% (eight of nine) of these patients at 32 to 48 weeks. Three patients discontinued therapy due to taste aversion. CONCLUSIONS: Among pediatric patients with high viral loads while on existing therapy, the ritonavir-containing regimen was generally well tolerated. In a significant proportion of patients, modification of therapy was associated with sustained improvements in viral loads and CD4 counts over 32 to 48 weeks.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".