Eeks. We assess the compliance of pill I a reward based on each visit. Other ratings included CD4 Aurora kinases cell count, measurement of plasma HIV RNA, H Hematology and plasma chemistry pro le and urine analysis. Covance Laboratories has conducted laboratory tests. In comments Ant from the first visit, we gave everyone an investigator from open weight Hlt, consists of basic treatment of ritonavir, protease inhibitor and a second fully active drug may or may not have been fully active. Protease inhibitors that may be prescribed k Closing S atazanavir, darunavir, fosamprenavir, lopinavir and ritonavir, or tipranavir. The patients took a dose of ritonavir given in the prescribing information for its protease inhibitor, ritonavir was CONFIRMS only for people who received elvitegravir ben.
The second drug background h Tte an NRTI, etravirine, maraviroc or enfuvirtide. Dual-NRTI combination with lamivudine or emtricitabine is only allowed if the patient is documented HIV with the mutation of the reverse transcriptase protein or Met184Val Met184Ile on genotype screening, so that individual people, maximum two have more background information agentsIn fully active OSU-03012 in the initial position, we distributed fa Feeder llig in a patient with a double-blind manner to either elvitegravir 150 mg once t resembled or 400 mg raltegravir twice t to receive possible. The supply Llige result was an interactive computer system train Generated accessible via a website or by phone, and we used a block size E of four. All patients and doctors test Did not randomly assigned.
To accomplish the concealment of treatment, each patient re U is the same number of tablets of study medication, which looked like raltegravir and elvitegravir. Because pharmacokinetic interactions in patients receiving atazanavir, lopinavir and ritonavir, have again U 85-mg tablet of elvitegravir or placebo.8 We stratified randomization ed by the amount of HIV RNA, the second agent class and geographical region. The investigated parameters Our main aim of this study was to assess whether effi ciency of elvitegravir to raltegravir is not lower, than any drug is administered with a background with an antiretroviral protease inhibitor ritonavir. We intend to modifi cation of the effi ciency analysis, the data for all patients who were assigned to a treatment group, who U at least one dose of study medication taken to treat again, and they were not so much a study site, which was closed in the early study of heavy Gain S in the log.
Per-protocol analysis included two groups of people: those who study again U studying the drug for up to 48 weeks and had no great s protocol violation, and those using the drug before 48 weeks discontinued because effi ciency low, the assessment by the investigator. Per protocol analysis does not include patients who dropped out for other reasons. Our prime Re endpoint was the proportion of patients in the MITT population who achieved and maintained an amount of HIV RNA below 50 copies per mL at week 48, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration challenge NIS time to loss of algorithm.10 treatment virologic response was said, were in people who have a background therapy before the best configuration the preferential L schvorgang failed. We have also evaluated the virological response to E