在家接受长效注射卡博特拉韦/利匹韦林与在诊所接受长效注射卡博特拉韦/利匹韦林的比较

IF 8.2 1区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY Clinical Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2024-10-08 DOI:10.1093/cid/ciae472
Stephanie E Kirk, Christina Young, Hayley Berry, Rochelle Hanson, Angela Moreland, Virginia Fonner, Mulugeta Gebregziabher, Jamila Williams, Eric G Meissner
{"title":"在家接受长效注射卡博特拉韦/利匹韦林与在诊所接受长效注射卡博特拉韦/利匹韦林的比较","authors":"Stephanie E Kirk, Christina Young, Hayley Berry, Rochelle Hanson, Angela Moreland, Virginia Fonner, Mulugeta Gebregziabher, Jamila Williams, Eric G Meissner","doi":"10.1093/cid/ciae472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The need for frequent travel to a clinic could impair access to injectable antiretroviral therapy for persons living 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.","PeriodicalId":10463,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of At-Home Versus In-Clinic Receipt of Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir/Rilpivirine\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie E Kirk, Christina Young, Hayley Berry, Rochelle Hanson, Angela Moreland, Virginia Fonner, Mulugeta Gebregziabher, Jamila Williams, Eric G Meissner\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cid/ciae472\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background The need for frequent travel to a clinic could impair access to injectable antiretroviral therapy for persons living 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae472\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae472","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 需要频繁往返诊所可能会影响人类免疫缺陷病毒 1 型(HIV-1)感染者接受注射抗逆转录病毒疗法。我们假设,让接受长效注射卡博替拉韦加利匹韦林(LA CAB/RPV)治疗的患者在接受医疗服务提供者上门给药之前,在自家冰箱中接收和储存药物,与在诊所接受治疗一样安全有效。方法 在 2021 年 8 月至 2022 年 12 月期间,南卡罗来纳医科大学传染病诊所开具 LA CAB/RPV 处方的患者可参加这项非随机观察研究。在诊所接受首次 LA CAB/RPV 注射后,参与者可选择在随后的 12 个月中在诊所或家中接受后续注射。结果 33 名参加者主要为黑人(64%)、男性(73%),中位年龄为 46 岁。由于过敏(1 人)、病毒学抑制丧失(1 人)和就诊依从性(1 人)等原因,3 名参与者停止了 LA CAB/RPV,转而接受口服抗逆转录病毒疗法。与在家接受治疗的人数(15 人)相比,主要在诊所接受治疗的人数(18 人)与在家接受治疗的人数(15 人)相当。注射部位疼痛/酸痛很常见(52% 的注射),但组间没有差异。两组在安全性和疗效方面没有差异,两组的治疗满意度都很高。研究结束时,所有参与者的病毒均被抑制,并继续接受治疗。结论 由医疗服务提供者在家中注射 LA CAB/RPV 与在诊所注射 LA CAB/RPV 相比,安全、有效且参与者满意度高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of At-Home Versus In-Clinic Receipt of Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir/Rilpivirine
Background The need for frequent travel to a clinic could impair access to injectable antiretroviral therapy for persons living 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Clinical Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
25.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
900
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) is dedicated to publishing original research, reviews, guidelines, and perspectives with the potential to reshape clinical practice, providing clinicians with valuable insights for patient care. CID comprehensively addresses the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of a wide spectrum of infectious diseases. The journal places a high priority on the assessment of current and innovative treatments, microbiology, immunology, and policies, ensuring relevance to patient care in its commitment to advancing the field of infectious diseases.
期刊最新文献
Alleviation of COVID-19 Symptoms and Reduction in Healthcare Utilization Among High-Risk Patients Treated With Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (NMV/R): A phase 3 randomized trial Efficacy and Safety of Systematic Corticosteroids treatment among HIV-Positive Patients with Tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials OPAT and Severe Sepsis Mortality. Diagnostic accuracy of TB screening tests in a prospective multinational cohort: Chest-X-ray with computer-aided detection, Xpert TB host response, and C-reactive protein Differences in Trends in Cancer Incidence Rates Among People with HIV during 2001–2019 By Race and Ethnicity and By Risk Group in the United States
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1