Efavirenz and cognition that matters
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We read with interest the publication from the SWEAR study group on the neurocognitive impact of switching away from an efavirenz (EFV)-containing regimen [1]. Cognitive difficulties are prevalent in persons living with HIV and have important consequences for function and quality of life. Any approach that might reduce the negative impact of antiretrovirals on cognition should be welcomed. In this context, the study from the SWEAR group is clinically important. Central Nervous System (CNS) side effects have been reported with EFV and may be a reason for early discontinuation. For those remaining on EFV and who are impaired on cognitive testing, this study tested whether switching from EFV to rilpivirine would improve cognition. A finding from the SWEAR study was that patients who were switched away from EFV reported less frequent cognitive difficulties after 24 weeks (change of −8.81 on 100) than those continuing with this medication (change of −3.79 on 100). The change in the switch group was likely clinically relevant given the SD at baseline was 11.11 (effect size >0.5 SD, 0.79), whereas the change in the continuation group was less than 0.5 SD with an effect size of 0.26. In contrast to this subjective improvement, there were no important changes observed on a battery of cognitive tests. Broadly similar findings were reported in another recent study on this topic [2]. The authors conclude: ‘… our results show that switching from EFV to rilpivirine was not associated with neurocognitive improvement and suggest that the decision to discontinue tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine/EFV among otherwise healthy individuals should not be driven by the expectation of a cognitive improvement following the switch, because it is unlikely to occur’. The conclusion echoes the current emphasis on performance-based cognition in the neuro-HIV literature. Self-perceived cognition is either not systematically documented or relegated to a secondary outcome. This is unfortunate given the key importance patients place on self-perceived cognition, but also its established role in explaining function and quality of life. Indeed, in our prospective Canadian study (N = 856) [3], self-perceived cognition was a stronger predictor of work status, work productivity, social function, health perception and quality of life than performance-based cognition [4–6]. The discrepancy between impairment on cognitive testing and self-perceived cognition is well known [7–9]. Both are important sources of information about how the patient is doing. Self-reports may more closely reflect real-world difficulties [7]. Our interpretation of this emerging literature is that switching away for EFV may in fact yield real-world benefits to the patient. Further documentation of the impact of this change on measured and self-perceived cognition, as well as on function and quality of life, is warranted. Acknowledgements Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,008 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».