Twelve‐month effectiveness and safety of bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide in people with <scp>HIV</scp>: Real‐world insights from <scp>BICSTaR</scp> cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence is an essential component of evidence-based medicine. The aim of the BICSTaR (BICtegravir Single Tablet Regimen) study is to assess effectiveness and safety of bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) in antiretroviral treatment-naïve (TN) and treatment-experienced (TE) people with HIV. METHODS: BICSTaR is a prospective, observational cohort study. Participants (≥18 years) are being followed for 24 months. A pooled analysis is presented at 12 months, with the primary endpoint of effectiveness (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL) and secondary endpoints of safety and tolerability (as per protocol). An exploration of patient-reported outcome measures using standardized questionnaires is included. RESULTS: Between June 2018 and May 2021, 1552 people with HIV were enrolled across 12 countries. The analysed population comprised 1509 individuals (279 TN, 1230 TE); most were white (76%), male (84%) and had one or more comorbid conditions (68%). Median age was 47 years. After 12 months of B/F/TAF treatment, HIV-1 RNA was <50 copies/mL in 94% (221/236) of TN participants and 97% (977/1008) of TE participants. Median CD4 cell count increased by 214 cells/μL (p < 0.001) in TN participants and 13 cells/μL (p = 0.014) in TE participants; median CD4/CD8 ratios increased by 0.30 and 0.03, respectively (both p < 0.001). Persistence was high at 12 months (TN, 97%; TE, 95%). No resistance to B/F/TAF emerged. Study drug-related adverse events occurred in 13% of participants through 12 months, leading to B/F/TAF discontinuation in 6%. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study provide robust real-world evidence to support the broad use of B/F/TAF in both TN and TE people with HIV.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".