MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415315812 · doi:10.1016/j.jiac.2025.102834

Month 12 outcomes of switching to long-acting cabotegravir + rilpivirine with an oral lead-in versus continuing bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide in the Phase 3b randomized SOLAR study

2025· article· en· W4415315812 on OpenAlexaff
Eisuke Adachi, Yoshiyuki Yokomaku, Dai Watanabe, Hiroyuki Gatanaga, Shinichi Oka, Takuma Shirasaka, Ronald D’Amico, Kenneth Sutton, Denise Sutherland‐Phillips, Jeremy Roberts, John Thornhill, Andrew Murungi, Kimberley Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infection and Chemotherapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsGlaxoSmithKline (Canada)
FundersJanssen PharmaceuticalsViiV Healthcare
KeywordsRilpivirineTenofovir alafenamideAdverse effectRegimenRandomized controlled trialPhases of clinical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cabotegravir + rilpivirine (CAB + RPV) dosed every 2 months (Q2M) is the only complete long-acting (LA) regimen for maintaining HIV-1 virologic suppression. In some regions, prescribing information mandates a 4-week oral lead-in (OLI) before initiating CAB + RPV LA. To support clinical decision-making in these areas, we report a pre-specified analysis in adults living with HIV-1 who switched to CAB + RPV LA with an OLI versus continuing daily oral bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) for maintaining virologic suppression in the Phase 3b, randomized, open-label, SOLAR study. In SOLAR, participants with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL were randomized (2:1) to either intramuscular CAB + RPV LA Q2M, with a 1-month optional once-daily OLI of CAB + RPV, or to continue daily oral BIC/FTC/TAF. Month 12 endpoints included virologic response, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Of 670 participants, 173 (39 %) switched to CAB + RPV LA with OLI, 274 (61 %) switched to CAB + RPV LA starting directly with injections, and 223 (33 %) continued BIC/FTC/TAF. At Month 12, the proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL (CAB + RPV LA OLI, 1 % [n = 2/173]; BIC/FTC/TAF, <1 % [n = 1/223]) and HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (CAB + RPV LA OLI, 87 % [n = 151/173]; BIC/FTC/TAF, 93 % [n = 207/223]) were similar between arms. Excluding injection site reactions, adverse events were comparable between arms; however, more participants in the CAB + RPV LA OLI arm had adverse events leading to withdrawal (5 % [n = 8/173] versus <1 % [n = 2/227]). Overall, 87 % (n = 142/163) of participants who switched preferred CAB + RPV LA OLI to BIC/FTC/TAF. Switching to CAB + RPV LA OLI demonstrated comparable efficacy to continuing BIC/FTC/TAF, was well tolerated and preferred by most participants who switched. ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04542070 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04542070).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Infection and ChemotherapySame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207