MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2996597631 · doi:10.1111/hiv.12835

Response to Noe, Oldenbuettel and Jaeger

2019· letter· en· W2996597631 sur OpenAlexaff
SD Shafran, Giovanni Di Perri

Notice bibliographique

RevueHIV Medicine · 2019
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTenofovir alafenamideMedicineEmtricitabineWeight gainDolutegravirWeight changeInternal medicineWeight lossClinical trialOncologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Body weightAntiretroviral therapyFamily medicineObesityViral load

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We thank Noe, Oldenbuettel and Jaeger for their interest in our article focusing on tenofovir alafenamide (TAF). They express concern that our article is “lacking a critical discussion about the increasing evidence of TAF promoting relevant weight gain.” We think that this is an unfair criticism because we submitted our manuscript before the initial uncontrolled report by Gomez et al. 1 was published and the ADVANCE study was presented and subsequently published 2. There were no reports of weight gain associated with TAF therapy at the time at which we submitted our article. As reported in our article, every randomized clinical trial comparing TAF to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) has shown improved renal and bone safety of TAF compared with TDF. Since publication of our paper, this was further supported by the DISCOVER study of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis which enrolled 5387 patients, 2694 of whom received emtricitabine (FTC) combined with TAF (FTC/TAF) and 2693 of whom received FTC/TDF. At week 48, there was a 1.0-kg increase in weight in FTC/TAF recipients compared with no change in weight in FTC/TDF recipients 3. While this difference was statistically significant in a study of nearly 5400 participants, its clinical significance is questionable. The weight gain in FTC/TAF recipients in the DISCOVER study is similar to the 1.1–1.3 kg weight gain at week 48 in the Gilead 4030 study 4, in which patients also received an integrase inhibitor (either dolutegravir or bictegravir), a drug class independently associated with weight gain, so the contribution of TAF to the small amount of weight gain in this study cannot be determined. The annual weight gain reported in patients receiving TAF in the DISCOVER study and the Gilead 4030 study is similar to normal annual weight gain in the general adult population 5. The ADVANCE study demonstrated greater weight gain at 48 weeks with TAF than with TDF in African patients who also received emtricitabine and dolutegravir, with a greater effect on weight in women than in men. It also demonstrated greater weight gain with dolutegravir than with efavirenz, when both were combined with TDF/FTC. The magnitude of weight gain 48 weeks after initiating antiretroviral therapy in this study in patients receiving dolutegravir in both the TDF- and TAF-containing arms has never been reported previously and may be unique to African patients, especially African women. A recent analysis of randomized clinical trials confirms that women and black patients gain more weight on antiretroviral therapy than men and non-black patients 6. This study demonstrated that low baseline CD4 count was the strongest predictor of weight gain 6, and it should be noted the CD4 counts at initiation of antiretroviral therapy are lower in Africa than in high-income countries. The modest increase in weight on TAF compared with TDF requires further study over extended periods of time in different populations, and such studies need to also measure weight gain-associated morbidities, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and fatty liver disease. The practice of medicine frequently involves competing risks. Perhaps the indisputable improved renal and bone safety of TAF relative to TDF is associated with a slight increase in weight. If so, clinicians will need to consider the relative merits of the benefits and risks of TAF just as they do with all drug therapy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,425
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,268
Écart entre enseignants0,252 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHIV MedicineMême sujetHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentTravaux en français237 207