Factors Associated with Health Care Providers' Preference for Forgoing an Oral Lead-In Phase When Initiating Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine in the SOLAR Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cabotegravir and rilpivirine long-acting (LA) antiretroviral therapy (ART) demonstrated similar safety and efficacy in maintaining viral suppression among participants switching from daily oral to LA ART in the Extension Phase of the FLAIR trial. The Phase IIIb SOLAR study comparing efficacy and safety of daily oral versus LA ART every 2 months allowed participants and health care providers (HCPs) to choose an oral lead-in (OLI) before LA initiation or proceed by immediately starting with injections (SWI). We conducted an online survey among SOLAR HCPs ( n = 110) in 13 countries to assess reasons for choosing OLI versus SWI. Logistic regression was used to identify factors influencing this decision. Thirty-two percent of HCPs reported a future preference to use OLI, whereas 54% reported a future preference for SWI. HCPs had greater odds of reporting future intentions for SWI if they were from Continental Europe versus North America [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 3.83, p < 0.05], from sites with a greater number of participants who initiated LA ART without OLI (aOR: 1.56, p < 0.01), and those who reported comfort with the medication safety profile (aOR: 6.39, p < 0.01). HCPs who participated in LA ART trials before SOLAR had decreased odds of reporting a preference for SWI compared to those with no prior LA ART trial experience (aOR: 0.11; p < 0.01). Results indicated higher intentions to SWI over OLI among HCPs initiating participants on LA ART. A major factor associated with SWI was provider comfort with safety data, reinforcing the role of continued training regarding an SWI approach.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".