A Randomized Switch From Nevirapine-Based Antiretroviral Therapy to Single Tablet Rilpivirine/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate in Virologically Suppressed Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1-Infected Rwandans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background. Many human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients remain on nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) despite safety and efficacy concerns. Switching to a rilpivirine-based regimen is an alternative, but there is little experience with rilpivirine in sub-Saharan Africa where induction of rilpivirine metabolism by nevirapine, HIV subtype, and dietary differences could potentially impact efficacy. Methods. We conducted an open-label noninferiority study of virologically suppressed (HIV-1 ribonucleic acid [RNA] < 50 copies/mL) HIV-1-infected Rwandan adults taking nevirapine plus 2 nucleos(t)ide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. One hundred fifty participants were randomized 2:1 to switch to coformulated rilpivirine-emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (referenced as the Switch Arm) or continue current therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was HIV-1 RNA < 200 copies/mL at week 24 assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration Snapshot algorithm with a noninferiority margin of 12%. Results. Between April and September 2014, 184 patients were screened, and 150 patients were enrolled; 99 patients switched to rilpivirine-emtricitabine-tenofovir, and 51 patients continued their nevirapine-based ART. The mean age was 42 years and 43% of participants were women. At week 24, virologic suppression (HIV-1 RNA level <200 copies/mL) was maintained in 93% and 92% in the Switch Arm versus the continuation arm, respectively. The Switch Arm was noninferior to continued nevirapine-based ART (efficacy difference 0.8%; 95% confidence interval, −7.5% to +12.0%). Both regimens were generally safe and well tolerated, although 2 deaths, neither attributed to study medications, occurred in participants in the Switch Arm. Conclusions. A switch from nevirapine-based ART to rilpivirine-emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had similar virologic efficacy to continued nevirapine-based ART after 24 weeks with few adverse events.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".