Patient‐reported outcomes in clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of cabotegravir + rilpivirine long‐acting injections as antiretroviral therapy: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) continues to have a high global burden, with approximately 39.9 million people currently living with the virus. Despite the clinical success of antiretroviral therapy (ART), adherence remains a significant challenge, often due to emotional distress and HIV-related stigma. Long-acting injectables (LAIs) such as the combination of cabotegravir (CAB) and rilpivirine (RPV) have emerged as promising alternatives, reducing the burden of daily pill regimens. METHODS: This systematic review explores the role of CAB + RPV-LA injectables in antiretroviral therapy (ART), with a focus on patient-reported outcomes from five key clinical trials. RESULTS: Findings reveal that CAB + RPV-LA maintains high levels of viral suppression comparable to daily ART while improving patient satisfaction and quality of life. Meta-analysis of HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (HIVTSQc) scores across multiple trials demonstrated consistent positive outcomes, with a mean score of 28.83 out of a possible range from -33 to +33, indicating a substantial improvement in patient satisfaction compared to baseline. Qualitative data highlight the psychological and logistical benefits of LAIs, including reduced stigma and enhanced treatment convenience. CONCLUSIONS: This review underscores the potential of CAB + RPV-LA in improving patient adherence and satisfaction while offering insights for future studies on longer-term outcomes of LAI use.
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 | 0.013 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".