Response by gender of HIV-1-infected subjects treated with abacavir/lamivudine plus atazanavir, with or without ritonavir, for 144 weeks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The 144-week results of the open-label, multicenter Atazanavir/Ritonavir Induction with Epzicom Study (ARIES) were stratified by gender to compare treatment responses. Methods: A total of 369 HIV-infected, antiretroviral-naïve subjects receiving once-daily abacavir/lamivudine + atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) whose HIV-1 RNA was <50 copies/mL by week 30 were randomized 1:1 at week 36 to maintain or discontinue ritonavir for 108 subsequent weeks. Between- and within-treatment gender-related efficacy and safety differences were analyzed. Results: Subjects were 85% male; 64% white; and had a mean age of 39 years, baseline median HIV-1 RNA of 114,815 copies/mL, and median CD4+ cell count of 198 cells/mm 3 . Gender (ATV [n=189]: 29 females/160 males; ATV/r [n=180]: 25 females/155 males) and most other demographics were similar between groups; more females than males were black (65% vs 25%) and fewer females had baseline HIV-1 RNA ≥100,000 copies/mL (41% vs 58%). At week 144, no significant differences between genders were observed in proportion maintaining HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (ATV, 79% vs 77%; ATV/r, 60% vs 75%) or <400 copies/mL (ATV, 83% vs 84%; ATV/r, 68% vs 82%) (intent-to-treat-exposed: time to loss of virologic response analysis); median CD4+ change from baseline (ATV, +365 vs +300 cells/mm 3 ; ATV/r, +344 vs +301 cells/mm 3 ); proportion with treatment-related grade 2–4 adverse events (baseline to week 144: ATV, 41% vs 31%; ATV/r, 36% vs 43%; weeks 36 to 144: ATV, 14% vs 13%; ATV/r, 24% vs 23%); or proportion developing fasting lipid changes. Female and male virologic failure rates (ATV, 0 vs 5; ATV/r, 2 vs 4) and proportions completing the study were similar during the extension phase. Primary withdrawal reasons were loss to follow-up and pregnancy for females and loss to follow-up and other for males. Conclusion: Over 144 weeks, no significant gender differences were observed in efficacy, safety, or fasting lipid changes with abacavir/lamivudine +ATV or abacavir/lamivudine +ATV/r. Keywords: ARIES, HIV-infected, gender, virologic efficacy
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".