Telbivudine Exerts no Antiviral Activity against HIV-1 <i>In Vitro</i> and in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV-HBV-coinfected individuals who need to be treated only for their HBV infection have limited therapeutic options, since most approved anti-HBV agents have a risk of selecting for drug-resistant HIV mutants. In vivo data are inconclusive as to whether telbivudine (LdT) may exert antiviral effects against HIV. Thus, we investigated in further detail the antiviral activity and the biochemical properties of LdT against HIV-1. METHODS: To investigate the activity of LdT against HIV-1 in humans we analysed viral dynamics and genotypic and phenotypic resistance development in two HIV-HBV-coinfected individuals with no prior antiviral exposure. To investigate the activity of LdT against HIV-1 in vitro, LdT susceptibility for HIV-1 wild-type strains as well as drug-resistant strains was determined. Furthermore, we studied whether the 5'-triphosphate form of LdT (LdT-TP) can act as a substrate for wild-type HIV-1 RT. RESULTS: In the two patients studied, LdT treatment did not result in a significant decline of HIV-1 RNA load nor in selection of genotypic or phenotypic resistance in HIV-1 RT. In vitro virological analyses demonstrated that LdT had no activity (50% effective concentration >100 μM) against wild type HIV and drug-resistant variants. Biochemical analyses demonstrated that LdT-TP is not incorporated by wild-type HIV-1 RT. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the in vivo and in vitro evidence obtained in this study, we conclude that LdT has no anti-HIV-1 activity and is currently the only selective anti-HBV agent among the five FDA-approved nucleoside/nucleotide analogues for treatment of HBV infections in HIV-infected individuals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".