Recycling Tenofovir in Second-line Antiretroviral Treatment With Dolutegravir: Outcomes and Viral Load Trajectories to 72 weeks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recycling tenofovir and lamivudine/emtricitabine with dolutegravir (TLD) after failure of non-nucleoside transcriptase inhibitor first-line antiretroviral therapy is more tolerable and scalable than dolutegravir plus optimized nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Studies have demonstrated TLD's efficacy as second line, but long-term follow-up is limited. METHODS: ARTIST is a single arm, prospective, interventional study conducted in Khayelitsha, South Africa, which switched 62 adults with 2 viral loads >1000 copies/mL from tenofovir, lamivudine/emtricitabine, and an non-nucleoside transcriptase inhibitor to TLD. We report efficacy to 72 weeks and, in a post hoc analysis, evaluated viral load trajectories of individuals with viremic episodes. RESULTS: Virologic suppression was 86% [95% confidence interval (CI) 74 to 93], 74% (95% CI: 61 to 84), and 75% (95% CI: 63 to 86) <50 copies/mL and 95%, 84%, and 77% <400 copies/mL at week 24, 48, and 72, respectively, with 89% (50/56) resistant (Stanford score ≥15) to tenofovir and/or lamivudine preswitch. No participants developed integrase-inhibitor resistance. Of the 20 participants not suppressed at week 24 and/or 48, 2 developed virologic failure, 1 switched regimen (adverse event), 2 were lost to follow-up, 1 missed the visit, 1 transferred out, 9 resuppressed <50 copies/mL with enhanced adherence counseling, and 4 remained viremic (3 with <200 copies/mL) at week 72. CONCLUSIONS: Recycling NRTIs with dolutegravir was effective for most participants to 72 weeks. Most with viremia did not develop virologic failure and subsequently suppressed with enhanced adherence counseling or continued to have low-level viremia. No integrase-inhibitor resistance was detected despite low-level viremia in a minority of participants.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".