Alternation of Antiretroviral Drug Regimens for HIV Infection. Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability at Week 96 of the Swatch Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Alternation of antiretroviral drug regimens has been proposed as a novel treatment strategy for HIV infection. However, some concerns persist regarding antiviral efficacy, adherence, toxicity and resistance evolution in the long term. METHODS: A total of 161 antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients were randomized to receive stavudine/didanosine/efavirenz (group A) or zidovudine/lamivudine/ nelfinavir (group B) or to alternate between the two regimens every 3 months starting with regimen A (group C). Antiviral efficacy, adherence, safety and tolerability were analysed every 12 weeks. RESULTS: After 96 weeks, time to virological failure was significantly delayed in the alternating regimen compared with the standards of care regimens. Virological suppression was seen in 46%, 48% and 58% of patients in groups A, B and C, respectively, in the intention-to-treat analysis and in 75%, 76% and 97% in the on-treatment analysis (A vs C: P=0.014; B vs C: P=0.016; A vs B: P=0.849). At the end of the study, 94% of patients in group A and 92% in groups B and C reported an adherence greater than 95%. Alternating therapy was associated with a similar impact on CD4+ counts in comparison with the standards of care regimens, as well as a lower mitochondrial DNA/nuclear DNA (mtDNA/nDNA) ratio decrease in the mitochondrial substudy performed on 37 patients. The frequency and intensity of adverse events in the alternating group decreased during subsequent cycles. DISCUSSION: Our results favour the hypothesis that proactive therapy switching may delay the accumulation of resistance mutations. Moreover, the alternating regimen was well tolerated and adherence remained comparably high in all treatment groups. The lower mtDNA/nDNA ratio decrease observed in this group may imply a lower impact on mitochondrial toxicity than in standard regimens.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".