MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023426609 · doi:10.1097/qad.0000000000002545

Efavirenz and cognition that matters

2020· letter· en· W3023426609 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie‐Josée Brouillette, Lesley K. Fellows, Nancy E. Mayo

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEfavirenzNeurocognitiveRilpivirineDiscontinuationCognitionContext (archaeology)MedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychologyCognitive declineRegimenPsychiatryDementiaInternal medicineAntiretroviral therapyFamily medicineViral load

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read with interest the publication from the SWEAR study group on the neurocognitive impact of switching away from an efavirenz (EFV)-containing regimen [1]. Cognitive difficulties are prevalent in persons living with HIV and have important consequences for function and quality of life. Any approach that might reduce the negative impact of antiretrovirals on cognition should be welcomed. In this context, the study from the SWEAR group is clinically important. Central Nervous System (CNS) side effects have been reported with EFV and may be a reason for early discontinuation. For those remaining on EFV and who are impaired on cognitive testing, this study tested whether switching from EFV to rilpivirine would improve cognition. A finding from the SWEAR study was that patients who were switched away from EFV reported less frequent cognitive difficulties after 24 weeks (change of −8.81 on 100) than those continuing with this medication (change of −3.79 on 100). The change in the switch group was likely clinically relevant given the SD at baseline was 11.11 (effect size >0.5 SD, 0.79), whereas the change in the continuation group was less than 0.5 SD with an effect size of 0.26. In contrast to this subjective improvement, there were no important changes observed on a battery of cognitive tests. Broadly similar findings were reported in another recent study on this topic [2]. The authors conclude: ‘… our results show that switching from EFV to rilpivirine was not associated with neurocognitive improvement and suggest that the decision to discontinue tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine/EFV among otherwise healthy individuals should not be driven by the expectation of a cognitive improvement following the switch, because it is unlikely to occur’. The conclusion echoes the current emphasis on performance-based cognition in the neuro-HIV literature. Self-perceived cognition is either not systematically documented or relegated to a secondary outcome. This is unfortunate given the key importance patients place on self-perceived cognition, but also its established role in explaining function and quality of life. Indeed, in our prospective Canadian study (N = 856) [3], self-perceived cognition was a stronger predictor of work status, work productivity, social function, health perception and quality of life than performance-based cognition [4–6]. The discrepancy between impairment on cognitive testing and self-perceived cognition is well known [7–9]. Both are important sources of information about how the patient is doing. Self-reports may more closely reflect real-world difficulties [7]. Our interpretation of this emerging literature is that switching away for EFV may in fact yield real-world benefits to the patient. Further documentation of the impact of this change on measured and self-perceived cognition, as well as on function and quality of life, is warranted. Acknowledgements Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDSSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207