Systematic review and meta‐analysis: Patient and programme impact of fixed‐dose combination antiretroviral therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the advantages to patients and to programmes between fixed-dose combination (FDC) antiretroviral therapy and separate tablet regimens. METHODS: Three electronic databases and two conference abstract sites were searched from inception to 01 March 2013 without geographical, language or date limits. Studies were included if they reported data on clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes and programme-related outcomes that could be related to pill burden for adult and adolescent patients on ART. For the primary outcomes of adherence and virological suppression, relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and these were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies including information on 27,230 subjects were reviewed. Data from randomised trials showed better adherence among patients receiving FDCs than among patients who did not (relative risk 1.10, 95%CI 0.98-1.22); these findings were consistent with data from observational cohorts (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07-1.28). There was also a tendency towards greater virological suppression among patients receiving FDCs in randomised trials (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.99-1.10) and observational cohort studies (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97-1.18). In all studies reporting patient preference, FDCs were preferred. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as low. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-dose combinations appear to offer multiple advantages for programmes and patients, particularly with respect to treatment adherence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".