Antiretroviral pill count and clinical outcomes in treatment‐naïve patients with <scp>HIV</scp> infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Treatment guidelines recommend single-tablet regimens for patients with HIV infection starting antiretroviral therapy. These regimens might be as effective and cost less if taken as separate drugs. We assessed whether the one pill once a day combination of efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir reduces the risk of disease progression compared with multiple-pill formulations of the same regimen. METHODS: We selected treatment-naïve patients starting one-, two- or three-pill formulations of this regimen in data from the Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration. These patients were followed until an AIDS event or death or until they modified their regimen. We analysed these data using Cox regression models, then used our models to predict the potential consequences of exposing a future population to either a one-pill regimen or a three-pill regimen. RESULTS: Among 11 739 treatment-naïve patients starting the regimen, there were 386 AIDS events and 87 deaths. Follow-up often ended when patients switched to the same regimen with fewer pills. After the first month, two pills rather than one was associated with an increase in the risk of AIDS or death [hazard ratio (HR) 1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.91], but three pills rather than two did not appreciably add to that increase (HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.84-1.68). We estimate that 77 patients would need to be exposed to a one-pill regimen rather than a three-pill regimen for 1 year to avoid one additional AIDS event or death. CONCLUSIONS: This particular single-tablet regimen is associated with a modest decrease in the risk of AIDS or death relative to multiple-pill formulations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".