Repeated Cycles of Recombinant Human Interleukin 7 in HIV-Infected Patients With Low CD4 T-Cell Reconstitution on Antiretroviral Therapy: Results of 2 Phase II Multicenter Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phase I/II studies in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients receiving antiretroviral therapy have shown that a single cycle of 3 weekly subcutaneous (s/c) injections of recombinant human interleukin 7 (r-hIL-7) is safe and improves immune CD4 T-cell restoration. Herein, we report data from 2 phase II trials evaluating the effect of repeated cycles of r-hIL-7 (20 µg/kg) with the objective of restoring a sustained CD4 T-cell count >500 cells/µL. METHODS: INSPIRE 2 was a single-arm trial conducted in the United States and Canada. INSPIRE 3 was a 2 arm trial with 3:1 randomization to r-hIL-7 versus control conducted in Europe and South Africa. Participants with plasma HIV RNA levels <50 copies/mL during antiretroviral therapy and with CD4 T-cell counts between 101 and 400 cells/µL were eligible. A repeat cycle was administered when CD4 T-cell counts fell to <550 cells/µL. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were treated and received 1 (n = 107), 2 (n = 74), 3 (n = 14), or 4 (n = 1) r-hIL-7 cycles during a median follow-up of 23 months. r-hIL-7 was well tolerated. Four grade 4 events were observed, including 1 case of asymptomatic alanine aminotransferase elevation. After the second cycle, anti-r-hIL-7 binding antibodies developed in 82% and 77% of patients in INSPIRE 2 and 3, respectively (neutralizing antibodies in 38% and 37%), without impact on the CD4 T-cell response. Half of the patients spent >63% of their follow-up time with a CD4 T-cell count >500 cells/µL. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated cycles of r-hIL-7 were well tolerated and achieved sustained CD4 T-cell restoration to >500 cells/µL in the majority of study participants. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: INSPIRE II: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01190111) and INSPIRE III: EudraCT (No. 2010-019773-15) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01241643).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".