Long-term efficacy and safety of etravirine-containing regimens in a real-life cohort of treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Etravirine (ETR) was approved in France in September 2008 and is used in combination with a boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) and other anti-retrovirals (ART) in HIV-infected pre-treated patients. This study aimed to report in a real-life setting the efficacy and tolerability of ETR-based regimens and factors associated with virological response. METHODS: The study population included all treatment-experienced patients who initiated an ETR-based regimen between September 2008 and July 2013 from the French Dat'AIDS cohort. Analyses were performed in ART-experienced patients starting ETR after virological failure (VF) or as a maintenance therapy (MT), with or without bPI. RESULTS: A total of 2006 patients (VF, n = 1014 (51%); MT, n = 992 (49%)) were included. At M12, the proportion of patients with HIV RNA < 50 copies/ml was 71.7% (72.0% and 71.1% with or without bPI) in the VF group and 90.5% (85.0% and 92.3% with or without bPI) in the MT group, without significant differences regarding the use of bPI. ETR was discontinued in 8.8% of patients for adverse events in 23.9% of cases (21.5% in VF, 29.5% in MT), treatment failure in 15.2% (16.2% in VF, 7.4% in MT) or simplification in 5.4% (4.6% in VF, 7.4% in MT). In the VF group, factors associated with virological response were a longer duration of HIV infection (OR = 2.7; p < 0.001) and baseline HIV RNA < 5 log10 copies/mL (OR = 2.1; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: This study shows that in ART-experienced patients ETR is well tolerated with a high efficacy when combined with other active drugs, even when the regimen does not include a bPI.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".