Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2024 article

Comparison of At-Home Versus In-Clinic Receipt of Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir/Rilpivirine

10Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
3Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The need for frequent travel to a clinic could impair access to injectable antiretroviral therapy for persons with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection. We hypothesized that allowing persons receiving treatment with long-acting injectable cabotegravir plus rilpivirine (LA CAB/RPV) to receive and store the medication in their own refrigerator prior to in-home administration by a healthcare provider would be as safe and effective as receiving treatment in a clinic. METHODS: Persons prescribed LA CAB/RPV in the Infectious Diseases clinic at the Medical University of South Carolina were offered enrollment in this non-randomized, observational study between August 2021 and December 2022. After in-clinic receipt of the initial LA CAB/RPV injection, participants chose to receive each subsequent injection over the following 12-months either in clinic or at home. RESULTS: The 33 enrolled participants were primarily Black (64%), male (73%), and had a median age of 46. Three participants stopped LA CAB/RPV and transitioned to oral antiretroviral therapy due to allergy (n = 1), loss of virologic suppression (n = 1), and visit adherence (n = 1) concerns. A comparable number of participants received treatment primarily in clinic (n = 18) relative to at home (n = 15). Injection site pain/soreness was common (52% of injections) but did not differ between groups. There were no differences in safety or efficacy between groups and both groups reported high treatment satisfaction. All participants were virologically suppressed and retained in care at the end of the study. CONCLUSIONS: At-home administration of LA CAB/RPV by a healthcare provider was comparably safe, effective, and associated with high participant satisfaction relative to in-clinic administration.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Comparison of At-Home Versus In-Clinic Receipt of Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir/Rilpivirine
Date Crossref
08/10/2024
Éditeur
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Où se fait cette recherche

  • Medical University of South Carolina Department of Medicine pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure
  • Family Health International 360 pays non établi dans la notice
    Organisation à but non lucratif
  • Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center Department of Public Health Sciences pays non établi dans la notice
    Établissement de santé
  • Global Health and Population Research pays non établi dans la notice
    Institution

Department of Medicine — Medical University of South Carolina, Family Health International 360 et Department of Public Health Sciences — Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, avec 1 autre affiliation.

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

HIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.