Virologic efficacy of tenofovir, lamivudine and dolutegravir as second-line antiretroviral therapy in adults failing a tenofovir-based first-line regimen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recycling tenofovir and lamivudine/emtricitabine (XTC) with dolutegravir would provide a more tolerable, affordable, and scalable second-line regimen than dolutegravir with an optimized nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone. We evaluated efficacy of tenofovir/lamivudine/dolutegravir (TLD) in patients failing first-line tenofovir/XTC/efavirenz or nevirapine. DESIGN: Single arm, prospective, interventional study. SETTING: Two primary care clinics in Khayelitsha, South Africa. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty adult patients with two viral loads greater than 1000 copies/ml. INTERVENTION: Participants were switched to TLD with additional dolutegravir (50 mg) for 2 weeks to overcome efavirenz induction. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Proportion achieving viral load less than 50 copies/ml at week 24 using the FDA snapshot algorithm. RESULTS: Baseline median CD4+ cell count was 248 cells/μl, viral load 10 580 copies/ml and 48 of 54 (89%) had resistance (Stanford score ≥15) to one or both of tenofovir and XTC. No participants were lost to follow-up. At week 24, 51 of 60 [85%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 73-93%] were virologically suppressed, six had viral load 50-100 copies/ml, one had viral load 100-1000 copies/ml, one no viral load in window, and one switched because of tenofovir-related adverse event. No integrase mutations were detected in the one participant meeting criteria for resistance testing. Virological suppression was achieved by 29 of 35 (83%, 95% CI 66-93%) with resistance to tenofovir and XTC, 11 of 13 (85%, 95% CI 55-98%) with resistance to XTC, and six of six (100%, 95% CI 54-100%) with resistance to neither. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of adults switching to second-line TLD achieved virologic suppression despite substantial baseline NRTI resistance and most not suppressed had low-level viraemia (≤100 copies/ml). This suggests recycling tenofovir and XTC with dolutegravir could provide an effective second-line option.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".