Daily 800 mg versus 600 mg Efavirenz for HIV Patients Treating Tuberculosis with a Rifampicin-Based Regimen: An Open Label Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pharmacokinetics studies recommend increasing efavirenz dosage in tuberculosis/HIV patients using rifampicin. We aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of 600 versus 800 mg of efavirenz in tuberculosis/HIV patients using rifampicin. DESIGN: We conducted an open label, multicentre, randomized trial from 2006 to 2012. The primary outcome was the proportion of undetectable viral load (HIV-VL) within six months. Secondary outcomes were time to achieve primary endpoint, trajectories of HIV-VL, proportion of any adverse events (AE), proportion of severe and serious AE (SSAE), and time to treatment interruption due to SSAE. METHODS: Efavirenz-naïve patients were randomized 30 days after rifampicin-containing regimens initiation to receive 600 (comparison arm) or 800 mg (intervention arm) efavirenz-based regimens and followed-up for 180 days. RESULTS: Sixty-five and 67 participants were respectively included in the comparison and intervention arms with 64.6% (52.5%-65.1%) and 62.7% (50.7%-73.3%) attaining undetectable HIV-VL in six months. Median time to attain undetectable HIV-VL was 70 days in both arms, with HIV-VL overlapping trajectories during follow-up. Cough, acne, and dizziness were more frequent in the intervention arm. SSAE were observed in 19.1% (13.8%-25.8%) and 25.0% (18.9%-33.2%), respectively. Survival curves up to the first SSAE-attributed treatment interruption were similar. None of the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Efficacy of efavirenz was similar regardless of dosage. Differences regarding safety occurred as mild and transient events, which did not interfere with treatment. Similar efficacy and safety (SSAE) and lower tolerance (minor AE) in the intervention group favour the use of 600 mg efavirenz in patients using rifampicin.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".