Suppr超能文献

长效注射用卡博特韦/利匹韦林居家给药与门诊给药的比较。

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

作者信息

Kirk Stephanie E, Young Christina, Berry Hayley, Hanson Rochelle, Moreland Angela, Fonner Virginia, Gebregziabher Mulugeta, Williams Jamila, Meissner Eric G

机构信息

Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

出版信息

Clin Infect Dis. 2025 Mar 17;80(3):613-617. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciae472.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

对于感染1型人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV-1)的患者而言,频繁前往诊所可能会影响其获得注射用抗逆转录病毒疗法。我们推测,允许接受长效注射用卡博特韦加rilpivirine(LA CAB/RPV)治疗的患者在医疗服务提供者进行家庭给药之前,在自己的冰箱中接收和储存药物,其安全性和有效性与在诊所接受治疗相当。

方法

2021年8月至2022年12月期间,在南卡罗来纳医科大学传染病诊所开具LA CAB/RPV处方的患者被邀请参加这项非随机观察性研究。在诊所接受首次LA CAB/RPV注射后,参与者选择在接下来的12个月内,在诊所或家中接受每次后续注射。

结果

33名入组参与者主要为黑人(64%),男性(73%),中位年龄为46岁。3名参与者因过敏(n = 1)、病毒学抑制丧失(n = 1)和就诊依从性(n = 1)问题而停止LA CAB/RPV治疗并转为口服抗逆转录病毒疗法。与在家中接受治疗的参与者(n = 15)相比,在诊所接受主要治疗的参与者数量相当(n = 18)。注射部位疼痛/酸痛很常见(52%的注射),但两组之间没有差异。两组在安全性或疗效方面没有差异,且两组均报告了较高的治疗满意度。所有参与者在研究结束时病毒学得到抑制并继续接受治疗。

结论

与在诊所给药相比,医疗服务提供者进行的LA CAB/RPV家庭给药具有相当的安全性、有效性,且参与者满意度较高。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验