Randomized clinical trial: Combination antiretroviral therapy with tenofovir-emtricitabine and lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with primary biliary cholangitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies using reverse transcriptase inhibitors to treat a human betaretrovirus (HBRV) in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) resulted in a 21% reduction in alkaline phosphatase (ALP). Herein, we studied the safety and efficacy of combination tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) and lopinavir-ritonavir (LPRr) in PBC patients unresponsive to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). METHODS: A double-blind randomized controlled trial was performed in patients on UDCA for 6 months or more with ALP levels greater than two-fold the upper limit of normal or bilirubin greater than the upper limit of normal. Patients were randomized to daily TDF/FTC 300/200 mg and LPRr 800/200 mg versus identical placebo for 6 months. The primary endpoint was reduction of ALP below 1.67 × ULN or normalization of bilirubin. HBRV DNA levels were assessed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) using digital droplet polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: < 0.05) after 6 months of combination antiretroviral therapy. The majority of patients had diminished levels of LPRr after 6 months' therapy suggesting inadequate intake of protease inhibitor toward the end of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Combination anti-retroviral therapy resulted in improvement in hepatic biochemistry with reduction in proviral load. The frequency of side effects from LPRr in patients with PBC exceeds the frequency reported for HIV, warranting the search for better tolerated combinations in future studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".