Patient-reported tolerability and acceptability of cabotegravir + rilpivirine long-acting injections for the treatment of HIV-1 infection: 96-week results from the randomized LATTE-2 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Long-acting (LA) injectable antiretroviral therapy (ART) is a novel modality currently under development as an alternative to daily oral ART.Objective: The LATTE-2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02120352) showed that cabotegravir LA + rilpivirine LA maintained virologic suppression through 96 weeks and included further exploration of patient-reported treatment outcomes with an LA injectable form of treatment.Methods: Two-hundred and eighty-six virologically suppressed participants on oral cabotegravir + abacavir/lamivudine once-daily tablets (induction period) were randomized to cabotegravir LA + rilpivirine LA once every 4 weeks (n = 115), once every 8 weeks (n = 115), or the continuation of the oral tablet regimen (n = 56) during the maintenance period. Patient-reported outcome measures included the HIV Medications Questionnaire (HIVMQ) and the HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status (HIVTSQ[s]) and change (HIVTSQ[c]) versions at prespecified study visits through Week 96 of the randomized maintenance period.Results: Most participants in the LA injectable groups reported injection-site–related adverse events; however, participants in the 4-week (median HIVTSQ[s] total score, 63.5; post hoc P = 0.02) and 8-week (65.0; post hoc P < 0.001) LA injectable groups were significantly more satisfied with treatment than participants in the oral maintenance group (60.0) at Week 96. This was consistent with results from the HIVTSQ[c] at Week 32, which revealed that participants in both LA groups were significantly more satisfied with therapy compared with patients receiving oral ART (both post hoc P < 0.001).Conclusion: Participants who received LA injectable therapy had high levels of treatment satisfaction and favorably viewed convenience and lifestyle-related aspects of the therapy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".