{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05712365591397849, 'fraction_numerical': 0.025537634408602152, 'mean_word_length': 4.514814814814815, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Randomized Study of Dual Versus Single Ritonavir-Enhanced Protease Inhibitors for Protease Inhibitor-Experienced Patients with HIV

Abstract Purpose: To compare activity and safety of a regimen containing lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) + fosamprenavir (FPV) to regimens with LPV/r or FPV + r and to test the hypothesis that a ritonavir-enhanced dual protease inhibitor (PI) regimen has better antiviral activity. Method: This study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized study. HIV-infected adults with prior PI failure were selectively randomized based on prior PI experience to either LPV/r, FPV + r, or LPV/r + FPV. All patients received tenofovir DF and 1 to 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar across arms. Study enrollment and follow-up were stopped early (N = 56) because pharmacokinetic analyses showed significantly lower LPV and FPV exposures in the dual-PI arm. At Week 24, proportions achieving >1 log10 decline in HIV RNA or <50 copies/mL in the dual-PI versus single-PI arms combined were 75% vs. 61% in intent-to-treat (ITT, p = .17) and 100% vs. 64% in as-treated (AT) analyses (p = .02), respectively. Median CD4+ T cell/mm3 increases were 81 vs. 41 (ITT, p = .4) and 114 vs. 43 (AT, p = .08), respectively. Clinical events and toxicity rates were not different between arms. Conclusion: The trial was unable to show a difference between dual versus single PIs in ITT analyses but favored dual PIs in AT analyses.