English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective   To assess the rate of protocol-defined treatment failure and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and saquinavir/ritonavir (SAQ/r).Design   Open-label, prospective, randomized (1:1), international multi-centre trial.Methods   Adult HIV-1-infected patients were assigned LPV/r 400/100 mg twice daily or SAQ/r 1000/100 mg twice daily with two or more nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)/non-NRTIs. All patients, whether on or off the assigned treatment, were followed for 48 weeks.Results   Of 339 randomized patients, 324 initiated assigned treatment (intention-to-treat/exposed [ITT/e] population). At 48 weeks, treatment failure occurred in 29/163 (18%) and 53/161 (33%) of patients in the LPV/r and SAQ/r arms, respectively (ITT/e, P=0.002, log rank test). In an analysis that also considered those patients who discontinued treatment as having failed treatment (ITT/e/discontinuation=failure), 40/161 (25%) LPV/r-treated individuals versus 63/161 (39%) SAQ/R-treated individuals failed treatment ( P=0.005, log rank test). Discontinuation of the assigned treatment occurred in 23/163 (14%) patients in the LPV/r-treated group, compared with 48/161 (30%) in the SAQ/r-treated group (ITT/e; P=0.001). The primary reasons for premature discontinuation were non-fatal adverse events (LPV/r: 12/163; SAQ/r: 21/161) and patients’ choice (LPV/r: 7/163; SAQ/r: 8/161). In the on-treatment analysis of time to treatment failure, no difference was observed between the two arms ( P=0.27, log rank test).Conclusion   LPV/r had better antiretroviral effects compared with SAQ/r at the doses and in the formulations studied. This may have been a result of patients’ preferences and ability to adhere to assigned therapy, rather than a result of differences in the intrinsic potency of the study protease inhibitors.

A Randomized Trial to Evaluate Lopinavir/Ritonavir versus Saquinavir/Ritonavir in HIV-1-Infected Patients: The Maxcmin2 Trial