Intensifying Antiretroviral Therapy With Raltegravir and Maraviroc During Early Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection Does Not Accelerate HIV Reservoir Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Persistent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) within the CD4(+) T-cell reservoir is an obstacle to eradication. We hypothesized that adding raltegravir and maraviroc to standard combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) during early HIV infection could substantially reduce viral reservoirs as a step towards eradication. Methods. A prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled pilot trial enrolled 32 participants with documented early (<6 months) HIV infection to either standard cART (emtricitabine/tenofovir/lopinavir/ritonavir) or intensive cART (standard regimen + raltegravir/maraviroc). Human immunodeficiency virus reservoirs were assessed at baseline and at 48 weeks by (1) proviral DNA, (2) cell-associated RNA, and (3) replication-competent virus, all from purified blood CD4(+) T cells, and (4) gut proviral DNA. A multiassay algorithm (MAA) on baseline sera estimated timing of infection. Results. Thirty individuals completed the study to the 48-week endpoint. The reduction in blood proviral burden was -1.03 log DNA copies/10(6) CD4(+) T cells versus -.84 log in the standard and intensive groups, respectively (P = .056). Overall, there was no significant difference in the rate of decline of HIV-associated RNA, replication-competent virus in blood CD4(+) T cells, nor proviral gut HIV DNA to 48 weeks. Individuals who presented with more recent HIV infection had significantly lower virus reservoirs, and cART tended to reduce their reservoirs to a greater extent. Conclusions. Intensive cART led to no additional reduction in the blood virus reservoir at 48 weeks compared with standard cART. Human immunodeficiency virus reservoir size is smaller earlier in HIV infection. Other novel treatment strategies in combination with early cART will be needed to eliminate the HIV latent reservoir.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".