Efficacy and Safety of a Switch to Rilpivirine-Based Regimens in Treatment-Experienced HIV-1-Infected Patients: A Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rilpivirine (RPV) is a second-generation once-daily non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) which has shown non-inferior antiviral activity to efavirenz in treatment-naive patients. Data in treatment-experienced patients are more limited. We wished to assess the efficacy and safety of a switch to RPV-based regimens in well-suppressed treatment-experienced patients. METHODS: Between September 2012 and June 2013, all antiretroviral therapy (ART)-experienced HIV-1-infected patients with a plasma HIV RNA level <50 copies/ml, and switching to an RPV-based regimen, were analysed in this retrospective observational monocentric cohort study. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with virological success defined as a plasma HIV RNA level <50 copies/ml at 12 months using the FDA snapshot algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 281 participants were studied and 97% received a combination of RPV/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. At month 12, the rate of virological success was 59% and increased to 72% using available data beyond month 12. Sixteen (6%) patients experienced virological failure, which was associated with the presence of the M184V/I resistance mutation in prior genotypes (P=0.02) and the use of a non-NNRTI as third agent before the switch (P=0.03). RPV-based regimens were overall well tolerated and only 23 (8%) patients discontinued ART because of adverse events, mostly neuropsychiatric adverse events. Switching to RPV was associated with significant but modest improvement of the lipid profile. CONCLUSIONS: In patients fully suppressed on ART, a switch to an RPV-based regimen should only be considered in the absence of prior virological failure or resistance mutations to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and NNRTIs to avoid virological failures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".