MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120580289 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1215

1029. Long-Term Patient Adherence and Management of Treatment Interruptions With Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir + Rilpivirine for Maintenance Therapy in Phase IIb/III Studies

2020· article· en· W3120580289 on OpenAlexaff
Paula Teichner, Sterling Wu, Feifan Zhang, David Dorey, Ronald D’Amico, Sandy Griffith, Kenneth Sutton, Cynthia McCoig, Ojesh R Upadhyay, Joseph W. Polli, David M. Margolis, Rodica Van Solingen‐Ristea, Kati Vandermeulen, William Spreen, Parul Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsGlaxoSmithKline (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosingMedicineRilpivirineRegimenClinical endpointAntiretroviral therapyInternal medicineClinical trialHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Viral loadVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Cabotegravir (CAB) and rilpivirine (RPV) are under development as a novel long-acting (LA) regimen for maintenance of HIV virologic suppression. Pooled data from pivotal phase III trials demonstrated noninferiority of CAB + RPV LA given as gluteal intramuscular injections vs current antiretroviral regimen (CAR) on the primary endpoint of HIV-1 ribonucleic acid (RNA) ≥50c/mL at Week 48, with high levels of adherence. Long-term adherence to dosing visits and outcomes after use of oral CAB+RPV to cover planned missed injections in FLAIR through Week 96 and in LATTE-2 through Week 256 is reported here. Methods Virologically suppressed participants (HIV-1 RNA < 50c/mL) were randomized to switch to CAB+RPV LA or to continue CAR. On-time injections occurred every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks (LATTE-2 only) within a ±7-day dosing window of the projected dosing date. Adherence to LA therapy was calculated as the number of on-time injection visits divided by the number of expected dosing visits through the period of follow up. Injection visits outside the prespecified window and missed injection visits with or without use of oral dosing were characterized. Results Of 6005 expected injection visits through Week 96 in FLAIR, 97% of injections were given within the allowed ±7-day dosing window, with 43% on the projected dosing date. 45 (< 1%) injection visits were early and 107 (2%) were late. Adherence to 9803 expected injection visits in LATTE-2, through Week 256, was similarly high, with 96% of injections given within the allowed ±7-day dosing window and 39% on the projected dosing date. For 31 missed injection visits in 18 participants across both trials, 30 were covered with oral CAB+RPV, with all participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA < 50c/mL through the last study visit. In those participants who used oral CAB + RPV for planned treatment interruptions, 3 had repeat use on ≥2 separate occasions. Conclusion Participants maintained high levels of long-term adherence to CAB+RPV LA, through 2-5 years of follow up, with 97% of injections given within the ±7-day dosing window in the FLAIR and LATTE-2 clinical trials. Oral CAB+RPV to cover planned missed visits provides an effective strategy to maintain virologic suppression during short periods of LA treatment interruption. Disclosures Paula Teichner, PharmD, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Sterling Wu, PhD, GlaxoSmithKline (Employee, Shareholder) David Dorey, MMATH, GlaxoSmithKline Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Ronald D’Amico, DO, MSc, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Sandy Griffith, PharmD, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Kenneth Sutton, MA, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Cynthia C. McCoig, MD, ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Joseph Polli, PhD, FAAPS, ViiV Healthcare (Employee) David Margolis, MD, MPH, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Rodica Van Solingen-Ristea, MD, Janssen R&D (Employee) Kati Vandermeulen, M.SC., Janssen Pharmaceutica (Employee, Shareholder) William Spreen, PharmD, ViiV Healthcare (Employee, Shareholder) Parul Patel, PharmD, ViiV Healthcare (Employee)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207