Virologic outcomes among adults with HIV using integrase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI)-based regimens have been recommended as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) for adults with HIV. But data on long-term effects of InSTI-based regimens on virologic outcomes remain limited. Here we examined whether InSTI improved long-term virologic outcomes compared with efavirenz (EFV). METHODS: We included adults from the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design who initiated their first ART regimen containing either InSTI or EFV between 2009 and 2016. We estimated differences in the proportion virologically suppressed up to 7 years of follow-up in observational intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. RESULTS: Of 15 318 participants, 5519 (36%) initiated an InSTI-based regimen and 9799 (64%) initiated the EFV-based regimen. In observational intention-to-treat analysis, 81.3% of patients in the InSTI group and 67.3% in the EFV group experienced virologic suppression at 3 months after ART initiation, corresponding to a difference of 14.0% (95% CI 12.4-15.6). At 1 year after ART initiation, the proportion virologically suppressed was 89.5% in the InSTI group and 90.2% in the EFV group, corresponding to a difference of -0.7% (95% CI -2.1 to 0.8). At 7 years, the proportion virologically suppressed was 94.5% in the InSTI group and 92.5% in the EFV group, corresponding to a difference of 2.0% (95% CI -7.3 to 11.3). The observational per-protocol results were similar to intention-to-treat analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Although InSTI-based initial ART regimens had more rapid virologic response than EFV-based regimens, the long-term virologic effect was similar. Our findings may inform guidelines regarding preferred initial regimens for HIV treatment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".