1029. Long-Term Patient Adherence and Management of Treatment Interruptions With Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir + Rilpivirine for Maintenance Therapy in Phase IIb/III Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".