Association between integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTIs) use with insulin resistance and incident diabetes mellitus in persons living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Poeple living with HIV have higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus and metabolic perturbations compared to non-HIV populations. Diabetes and metabolic syndrome co-morbidities add significant burden to HIV care. Currently, WHO recommends integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) as the first or second line therapy in people with HIV due to overall good tolerability and safety profile. However, whether INSTI use increases the risk of incident diabetes (with or without metabolic syndrome) compared to other anti-retroviral therapies (ART) is controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to examine this risk in HIV-positive populations receiving INSTIs compared to other ART regimens (not containing INSTIs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. This protocol adheres to the Standard Protocol Items for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses checklist. Eligibility criteria will be original peer-reviewed published articles and conference abstracts with no language or geographical restriction; that report the ocurrence of diabetes mellitus as a discrete outcome or part of metabolic syndrome, in adult PLWHIV receiving INSTIs compared to other ART regimens. PubMed/ Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be searched from 1st- January-2000 to 31st-January-2022. Per our a priori, screening, inclusion and data extraction will be conducted separately by two investigators, and a senior researcher will be consulted in case of disagreement. The quality of included studies will be assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies and the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB2) for randomized controlled trials. The quantitative synthesis of the study outcomes will be explored in different subgroups and sensitivity analyses. Meta regression will also be performed to further test the predictors of the outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is waived as the study is a review of published litterature. The analyses will be presented in conferences and published as a scientific article. TRIAL REGISTRARTION: PROSPERO registration number is; CRD42021273040.
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 | 0.043 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.004 |
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".