GSK Investigational Site
Ghent, 9000, Belgium
NCT Number: NCT01610427
The purpose of this study is to investigate a combined set of parameters deemed to impact the quality of CMI analyses in terms of the proportion of viable lymphocytes in antiretroviral therapy-naïve HIV-1 infected subjects.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year–55 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Ghent, 9000, Belgium
This study will address the respective and combined impact of (i) timing between blood collection and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) processing ["time-to-process"] and (ii) timing of PBMC resting before stimulation ["resting -time"].
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
All subjects must satisfy all the following criteria at study entry:
Exclusion criteria
The following criteria should be checked at the time of study entry. If any exclusion criterion applies, the subject must not be included in the study:
Blood samples will be collected in all subjects at two time points, at the Screening Visit (Day 0) and at the Sample Collection Visit (Day 15)
Time frame: At Day 15 (sample collection visit)
The objective was to model lymphocyte viability according to "time-to-process" (TP=2h, 7h or 24h) and "resting time" (RT=2h, 6h or 18h ["none" resting time not included]) conditions to select the best combination of these two parameters to maximize the post-ICS viability in CMI samples collected from ART-naïve HIV-1-infected subjects. Viability (%) = 10^P/(1 + 10^P)*100 with P for Prediction.The optimum of the viability was predicted as P (LOGIT)= intercept + a*TP + b*RT + a*b*TP*RT + a*a*TP*TP + b*b*RT*RT. Where "intercept", "TP", "RT", "TP*RT", "TP *TP", "RT*RT" are the parameters evaluated and presented in the 3 first primary outcomes. And a and b are log-transformed parameters corresponding respectively to the "TP" and the "RT" where the prediction has to be done. This outcome is presenting the intercept i.e. expected mean value of Prediction when "TP" and "RT" = 0. The optimum of this Design of Experiment is presented in outcome 4.
Time frame: At Day 15 (sample collection visit)
The objective was to model lymphocyte viability according to "time-to-process" (TP=2h, 7h or 24h) and "resting time" (RT=2h, 6h or 18h ["none" resting time not included]) conditions to select the best combination of these two parameters to maximize the post-ICS viability in CMI samples collected from ART-naïve HIV-1-infected subjects. Viability (%) = 10 ^ P / (1 + 10 ^ P) * 100 with P for Prediction.The optimum of the viability was predicted as P (LOGIT)= intercept + a*TP + b*RT + a*b*TP*RT + a*a*TP*TP + b*b*RT*RT. Where "intercept", "TP", "RT", "TP*RT", "TP *TP", "RT*RT" are the parameters evaluated and presented in the 3 first primary outcomes. And a and b are log-transformed parameters corresponding respectively to the "TP" and the "RT" where the prediction has to be done. This outcome is presenting "TP" and "RT" estimates expressed as log(hours). The optimum of this Design of Experiment (DOE) is presented in outcome 4.
Time frame: At Day 15 (sample collection visit)
The objective was to model lymphocyte viability according to "time-to-process" (TP=2h, 7h or 24h) and "resting time" (RT=2h, 6h or 18h ["none" resting time not included]) conditions to select the best combination of these two parameters to maximize the post-ICS viability in CMI samples collected from ART-naïve HIV-1-infected subjects. Viability (%) = 10 ^ P / (1 + 10 ^ P) * 100 with P for Prediction.The optimum of the viability was predicted as P (LOGIT)= intercept + a*TP + b*RT + a*b*TP*RT + a*a*TP*TP + b*b*RT*RT. Where "intercept", "TP", "RT", "TP*RT", "TP *TP", "RT*RT" are the parameters evaluated and presented in the 3 first primary outcomes. And a and b are log-transformed parameters corresponding respectively to the "TP" and the "RT" where the prediction has to be done. This outcome is presenting TP*RT, TP*TP and RT*RT estimates expressed as log(hours^2). The optimum of this DOE is presented in outcome 4.
Time frame: At Day 15 (sample collection visit)
The objective was to model lymphocyte viability according to "time-to-process" (TP=2h, 7h or 24h) and "resting time" (RT=2h, 6h or 18h ["none" resting time not included]) conditions to select the best combination of these two parameters to maximize the post-ICS viability in CMI samples collected from ART-naïve HIV-1-infected subjects. Viability (%) = 10 ^ P / (1 + 10 ^ P) * 100 with P for Prediction.The optimum of the viability was predicted as P (LOGIT)= intercept + a*TP + b*RT + a*b*TP*RT + a*a*TP*TP + b*b*RT*RT. Where "intercept", "TP", "RT", "TP*RT", "TP *TP", "RT*RT" are the parameters evaluated and presented in the 3 first primary outcomes. And a and b are log-transformed parameters corresponding respectively to the "TP" and the "RT" where the prediction has to be done. The optimum predicted mean cell viability of this Design of Experiment is presented in this outcome and expressed as percentage.
Time frame: At Day 15 (sample collection visit)
The objective was to model lymphocyte viability according to "time-to-process" (TP=2h, 7h or 24h) and "resting time" (RT=0h) conditions in order to select the best combination of these two parameters with the aim to maximize the post-ICS viability in CMI samples collected from ART-naïve HIV-1-infected subjects. Viability (%) = 10 ^ P / (1 + 10 ^ P) * 100 with P for Prediction. The optimum of the viability was predicted as follows. P (LOGIT)= intercept + a*TP + b*RT + a*b*TP*RT + + b*b*RT*RT. Where "intercept", "TP", "RT", "TP*RT", "TP *TP", "RT*RT" are the parameters evaluated and presented in the primary outcomes 5, 6 and 7. And "a" and "b" are parameters (hour) corresponding respectively to the "TP" and the "RT" where the prediction has to be done. This outcome is presenting the intercept i.e. expected mean value of Prediction when "TP" and "RT" = 0. The optimum of this Design of Experiment is presented in outcome 8.
Time frame: At Day 15 (sample collection visit)
The objective was to model lymphocyte viability according to "time-to-process" (TP=2h, 7h or 24h) and "resting time" (RT=0h) conditions in order to select the best combination of these two parameters with the aim to maximize the post-ICS viability in CMI samples collected from ART-naïve HIV-1-infected subjects. Viability (%) = 10 ^ P / (1 + 10 ^ P) * 100 with P for Prediction. The optimum of the viability was predicted as follows. P (LOGIT)= intercept + a*TP + b*RT + a*b*TP*RT + + b*b*RT*RT. Where "intercept", "TP", "RT", "TP*RT", "TP *TP", "RT*RT" are the parameters evaluated and presented in the primary outcomes 5, 6 and 7. And "a" and "b" are parameters (hour) corresponding respectively to the "TP" and the "RT" where the prediction has to be done. This outcome is presenting "TP" and "RT" estimates expressed as log(hours). The optimum of this Design of Experiment (DOE) is presented in outcome 8.
Time frame: At Day 15 (sample collection visit)
The objective was to model lymphocyte viability according to "time-to-process" (TP=2h, 7h or 24h) and "resting time" (RT=0h) conditions in order to select the best combination of these two parameters with the aim to maximize the post-ICS viability in CMI samples collected from ART-naïve HIV-1-infected subjects. Viability (%) = 10 ^ P / (1 + 10 ^ P) * 100 with P for Prediction. The optimum of the viability was predicted as follows. P (LOGIT)= intercept + a*TP + b*RT + a*b*TP*RT + + b*b*RT*RT. Where "intercept", "TP", "RT", "TP*RT", "TP *TP", "RT*RT" are the parameters evaluated and presented in the primary outcomes 5, 6 and 7. And "a" and "b" are parameters (hour) corresponding respectively to the "TP" and the "RT" where the prediction has to be done. This outcome is presenting TP*RT and RT*RT estimates expressed as log(hours^2). The optimum of this DOE is presented in outcome 8.
Time frame: At Day 15 (sample collection visit)
The objective was to model lymphocyte viability according to "time-to-process" (TP=2h, 7h or 24h) and "resting time" (RT=0h) conditions in order to select the best combination of these two parameters with the aim to maximize the post-ICS viability in CMI samples collected from ART-naïve HIV-1-infected subjects. Viability (%) = 10 ^ P / (1 + 10 ^ P) * 100 with P for Prediction. The optimum of the viability was predicted as follows. P (LOGIT)= intercept + a*TP + b*RT + a*b*TP*RT + + b*b*RT*RT. Where "intercept", "TP", "RT", "TP*RT", "TP *TP", "RT*RT" are the parameters evaluated and presented in the primary outcomes 5, 6 and 7. And "a" and "b" are parameters (hour) corresponding respectively to the "TP" and the "RT" where the prediction has to be done. The optimum predicted mean cell viability of this Design of Experiment is presented in this outcome and expressed as percentage.
Time frame: A Day 15 (sample collection visit)
The percentage of viable lymphocytes was determined by Forward Scatter/Side Scatter (FSC/SSC) and LIVE/DEAD gating during flow cytometry analysis for each incubation of time-to-time process (TP) = 2h, 7h and 24 h and resting time (RT) = 18h for the comparison of resting time = 18h and classic incubation time versus resting time = 18h and post-6h incubation time.
Time frame: At Day 15 (sample collection visit)
Data were collected but could not be reported as data were below level of detection.
Time frame: At Day 15 (sample collection visit)
HIV-RT specific responses of CD8+ T cells expressing at least one cytokine, among: Interleukin-2 (IL-2), Interferon-gamma (IFN-g) and Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-a),after stimulation with HIV-1 peptide pools for time-to-process (TP) (2, 7, 24 hours) and resting time (RT) (0,2,6,18 hours) post-overnight ICS and for time-to-process (7 hours) and resting time (18 hours) post 6 hours ICS.
Time frame: During the whole study period (From Day 0 to Day 15)
Serious adverse events (SAEs) assessed include medical occurrences that result in death, are life threatening, require hospitali-zation or prolongation of hospitalization or result in disability/incapacity.
GlaxoSmithKline
Industry
Optimizing the Quality of Samples Used for the Evaluation of Cell-mediated Immune (CMI) Responses in Antiretroviral Therapy (ART)-naïve Human Deficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1)-Infected Subjects
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT03670316
AIDS, Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT00302822
AIDS, Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
Paris, France
View Trial DetailsNCT06282328
AIDS, Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
Milan, Italy
View Trial DetailsNCT03633721
AIDS, Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
The Bronx, New York, United States
View Trial Details