1035. Patient-Reported Outcomes on Long-Acting Cabotegravir + Rilpivirine as Maintenance Therapy: FLAIR 96-Week Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In the phase 3 FLAIR study, switching to monthly injectable long-acting (LA) cabotegravir (CAB) + rilpivirine (RPV) was noninferior to continued daily oral dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC) for the maintenance of virologic suppression over 96 weeks in adults with HIV-1. Key patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through Week 96 are presented. Methods In FLAIR, ART-naive adult participants received induction therapy with oral DTG/ABC/3TC for 20 weeks. Those with HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL at 16 weeks were randomized (1:1) to continue DTG/ABC/3TC or receive monthly CAB + RPV LA injections after a 4-week lead-in with daily oral CAB + RPV through Week 96. Treatment satisfaction (HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version [HIVTSQs]) and acceptability of injections (Perception of Injection [PIN] Questionnaire) up to Week 96 were secondary endpoints. Results A total of 566 participants were randomized (median age, 34 years; 22% female); baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. At Week 96, significantly greater improvement from baseline in total treatment satisfaction score was observed in the CAB + RPV LA vs DTG/ABC/3TC treatment group (adjusted mean difference, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.1-3.5]; P< 0.001), further increasing from Weeks 24 (2.1 [0.9-3.3]) and 44 (0.7 [−0.4, 1.9]). Key drivers for the difference in HIVTSQs between treatment groups were items assessing convenience, flexibility, and satisfaction to continue with LA therapy. In participants receiving CAB + RPV LA, mean score for the “Acceptability of ISRs” dimension of PIN (scale, 1-5) significantly decreased (improved) from Week 5 to Weeks 41, 48, and 96 (2.08 to 1.71, 1.66, and 1.71, respectively; P< 0.001 for all). In addition, 82% and 85% of LA participants, respectively, rated pain and local reactions due to injections as “totally” or “very acceptable” at Week 96. Conclusion At Week 96, FLAIR participants receiving LA therapy reported greater improvement in treatment satisfaction compared with participants continuing on daily oral medication as well as overall good acceptability of injections with improvement over time. Overall, these results support monthly CAB + RPV LA as an alternative to daily oral regimens for adults with HIV-1. Disclosures Vasiliki Chounta, MSc, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Sharon Walmsley, FRCPC, MD, MSC, GSK (Grant/Research Support)ViiV Healthcare (Grant/Research Support) David Dorey, MMATH, GlaxoSmithKline Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) William Spreen, PharmD, ViiV Healthcare (Employee, Shareholder) Sandy Griffith, PharmD, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) David Margolis, MD, MPH, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".