MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213206827 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciac136

Impact of Tamoxifen on Vorinostat-Induced Human Immunodeficiency Virus Expression in Women on Antiretroviral Therapy: AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5366, The MOXIE Trial

2022· article· en· W4213206827 on OpenAlexaff
Eileen P. Scully, Evgenia Aga, Athe Tsibris, Nancie M. Archin, Kate Starr, Qing Ma, Gene D. Morse, Kathleen Squires, Bonnie J. Howell, Guoxin Wu, Lara Hosey, Scott F. Sieg, Lynsay MacLaren Ehui, Françoise Giguel, Kendyll Coxen, Curtis Dobrowolski, Monica Gandhi, Steven G. Deeks, Nicolas Chomont, Elizabeth Connick, Catherine Godfrey, Jonathan Karn, Daniel R. Kuritzkes, Ronald J. Bosch, Rajesh T. Gandhi

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersCenter for AIDS Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthHarvard University Center for AIDS Research
KeywordsVorinostatMedicineTamoxifenOncologyInternal medicineViremiaClinical trialZidovudineImmunologyPharmacologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Breast cancerCancerHistoneBiologyViral diseaseHistone deacetylase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Biological sex and the estrogen receptor alpha (ESR1) modulate human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) activity. Few women have enrolled in clinical trials of latency reversal agents (LRAs); their effectiveness in women is unknown. We hypothesized that ESR1 antagonism would augment induction of HIV expression by the LRA vorinostat. METHODS: AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5366 enrolled 31 virologically suppressed, postmenopausal women on antiretroviral therapy. Participants were randomized 2:1 to receive tamoxifen (arm A, TAMOX/VOR) or observation (arm B, VOR) for 5 weeks followed by 2 doses of vorinostat. Primary end points were safety and the difference between arms in HIV RNA induction after vorinostat. Secondary analyses included histone 4 acetylation, HIV DNA, and plasma viremia by single copy assay (SCA). RESULTS: No significant adverse events were attributed to study treatments. Tamoxifen did not enhance vorinostat-induced HIV transcription (between-arm ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], .2-2.4). Vorinostat-induced HIV transcription was higher in participants with increases in H4Ac (fold increase, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.34-5.79) vs those 9 who did not (fold increase, 1.04; 95% CI, .25-4.29). HIV DNA and SCA plasma viremia did not substantially change. CONCLUSIONS: Tamoxifen did not augment vorinostat-induced HIV RNA expression in postmenopausal women. The modest latency reversal activity of vorinostat, postmenopausal status, and low level of HIV RNA expression near the limits of quantification limited assessment of the impact of tamoxifen. This study is the first HIV cure trial done exclusively in women and establishes both the feasibility and necessity of investigating novel HIV cure strategies in women living with HIV. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03382834.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207