Clinical Effectiveness of Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitor–Based Antiretroviral Regimens Among Adults With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Collaboration of Cohort Studies in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI)-based regimens are now recommended as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) for adults with human immunodeficiency virus, but evidence on long-term clinical effectiveness of InSTI-based regimens remains limited. We examined whether InSTI-based regimens improved longer-term clinical outcomes. METHODS: We included participants from clinical cohorts in the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design who initiated their first ART regimen, containing either InSTI (ie, raltegravir, dolutegravir, and elvitegravir-cobicistat) or efavirenz (EFV) as an active comparator, between 2009 and 2016. We estimated observational analogs of 6-year intention-to-treat and per-protocol risks, risk differences (RDs), and hazard ratios (HRs) for the composite outcome of AIDS, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, end-stage renal disease, end-stage liver disease, or death. RESULTS: Of 15 993 participants, 5824 (36%) initiated an InSTI-based and 10 169 (64%) initiated an EFV-based regimen. During the 6-year follow-up, 440 in the InSTI group and 1097 in the EFV group incurred the composite outcome. The estimated 6-year intention-to-treat risks were 14.6% and 14.3% for the InSTI and EFV groups, respectively, corresponding to a RD of 0.3% (95% confidence interval, -2.7% to 3.3%) and a HR of 1.08 (.97-1.19); the estimated 6-year per-protocol risks were 12.2% for the InSTI group and 11.9% for the EFV group, corresponding to a RD of 0.3% (-3.0% to 3.7%) and a HR of 1.09 (.96-1.25). CONCLUSIONS: InSTI- and EFV-based initial ART regimens had similar 6-year composite clinical outcomes. The risk of adverse clinical outcomes remains substantial even when initiating modern ART.
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 | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".