Randomized, Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial of De Simone Formulation Probiotic During HIV-Associated Suboptimal CD4+ T Cell Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether probiotic supplementation may reduce disease-linked systemic immune activation in people living with HIV with the immunologic nonresponder phenotype. DESIGN: Phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial. METHODS: HIV-positive individuals with blood CD4+ T-cell counts <350/mm3 despite viral suppression were randomized to 2:1 to receive De Simone Formulation Probiotic (DSFP; "Visbiome" commercially) or placebo for 48 weeks; target enrollment was 36 patients. The primary endpoint was the change in blood CD8+ T-cell coexpression of human leukocyte antigen-DR isotype and CD38 ("CD8 activation"). Secondary endpoints included biomarkers of inflammation, immune reconstitution, bacterial translocation, and gut permeability. Adjusted linear regression and linear mixed regression methods evaluated the differences between study arms from baseline to week 48. Study monitoring was performed by the CIHR Canadian HIV Trials Network Data Safety Monitoring Committee. RESULTS: Nineteen patients received DSFP, whereas 10 received placebo. One probiotic arm patient withdrew early. Blood CD8 activation increased 0.82 percentage points (pp) in the probiotic arm (95% confidence interval: -1.23 to 2.87;) and decreased by 2.06 pp in the placebo arm (-4.81 to 0.70; between arms P = 0.097). CD4+ T-cell activation (%HLA-DR+) decreased in the placebo arm [-3.79 pp (-7.32 to -0.26)] but increased in the probiotic arm [1.64 (-0.98 to 4.26); between arms P = 0.018]. No differences were observed in plasma or urine biomarkers of inflammation or microbial translocation. CONCLUSIONS: Blood immune activation markers in immunologic nonresponder individuals on effective antiretroviral treatment were not reduced by supplementation with DSFP; CD4+ T-cell activation may have been increased.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".