Prospective plasma efavirenz concentration assessment in Chinese HIV‐infected adults enrolled in a large multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Few studies have explored the optimal dosing for efavirenz in individuals from China. We investigated plasma efavirenz concentrations and their association with efficacy and tolerance of efavirenz 600 mg daily in Chinese HIV‐infected adults. Methods An analysis was performed using plasma samples from 455 patients enrolled in a prospective multicentre trial in China. A total of 1198 plasma samples collected at weeks 4, 24 and 48 following antiretroviral therapy initiation were analysed. The mid‐dose interval efavirenz concentrations (C12) were determined using high‐performance liquid chromatography. Results The median efavirenz concentration (interquartile range) steadily increased over time from 3.02 (2.28–4.23) to 3.71 (2.91–4.91) mg/L from week 4 to 48 (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients withC12> 4.0 mg/L also rose from 28.0% to 34.2% and 43.8%, measured at 4, 24 and 48 weeks, respectively (P < 0.001). Five patients had efavirenz concentrations < 1.0 mg/L at week 4, 24 or 48. In the multivariable regression analysis, lower body weight and non‐Han ethnicities were associated with higher efavirenz concentrations over time. At each time‐point, patients with a body weight < 60 kg had significantly higher efavirenzC12compared with those with body weight ≥ 60 kg (P < 0.05). Conclusions Efavirenz concentrations increased steadily over 48 weeks, and a substantial proportion of participants had efavirenzC12above the upper limit of the proposed therapeutic window, especially those with low body weight (< 60 kg). Based upon these findings, a dosage reduction of efavirenz to 400 mg daily may warrant consideration in this population, especially for those with lower body weight.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".