Weight gain among treatment‐naïve persons with HIV starting integrase inhibitors compared to non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or protease inhibitors in a large observational cohort in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Weight gain following antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation is common, potentially predisposing some persons with HIV (PWH) to cardio‐metabolic disease. We assessed relationships between ART drug class and weight change among treatment‐naïve PWH initiating ART in the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA‐ACCORD). Methods Adult, treatment‐naïve PWH in NA‐ACCORD initiating integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI), protease inhibitor (PI) or non‐nucleoside reverse‐transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)‐based ART on/after 1 January 2007 were followed through 31 December 2016. Multivariate linear mixed effects models estimated weight up to five years after ART initiation, adjusting for age, sex, race, cohort site, HIV acquisition mode, treatment year, and baseline weight, plasma HIV‐1 RNA level and CD4 + cell count. Due to shorter follow‐up for PWH receiving newer INSTI drugs, weights for specific INSTIs were estimated at two years. Secondary analyses using logistic regression and all covariates from primary analyses assessed factors associated with >10% weight gain at two and five years. Results Among 22,972 participants, 87% were male, and 41% were white. 49% started NNRTI‐, 31% started PI‐ and 20% started INSTI‐based regimens (1624 raltegravir (RAL), 2085 elvitegravir (EVG) and 929 dolutegravir (DTG)). PWH starting INSTI‐based regimens had mean estimated five‐year weight change of +5.9kg, compared to +3.7kg for NNRTI and +5.5kg for PI. Among PWH starting INSTI drugs, mean estimated two‐year weight change was +7.2kg for DTG, +5.8kg for RAL and +4.1kg for EVG. Women, persons with lower baseline CD4 + cell counts, and those initiating INSTI‐based regimens had higher odds of >10% body weight increase at two years (adjusted odds ratio = 1.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.20 to 1.56 vs. NNRTI). Conclusions PWH initiating INSTI‐based regimens gained, on average, more weight compared to NNRTI‐based regimens. This phenomenon may reflect heterogeneous effects of ART agents on body weight regulation that require further exploration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".