ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2025
Comparable real-world effectiveness between switches to cabotegravir + rilpivirine long-acting or modern daily oral regimens in the United States: an OPERA cohort study.
Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Acting Injectable Antiretroviral Therapies for HIV Treatment and Prevention: Clinical Pharmacology, Recent Advances and Future Opportunities.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Implementation of Long-Acting Cabotegravir/Rilpivirine in US HIV Care Settings: Results From a National Survey of Frontline Clinicians.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCabotegravir + rilpivirine long-acting (CAB+RPV LA) injectable was approved in the United States in 2021 for HIV-1 treatment in virologically suppressed (viral load [VL] <50 copies/mI individuals. In clinical trials, CAB+RPV LA was non-inferior to oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens in virologically suppressed individuals. We compared real-world effectiveness between CAB+RPV LA and oral ART regimens and assessed predictors of confirmed virologic failure (CVF) on CAB+RPV LA.
methodsFrom the OPERA
resultsDuring the study period, 1362 virologically suppressed adults switched to CAB+RPV LA, and 2783 switched to a new oral ART regimen (92% second-generation integrase inhibitor [INSTI]-based). Compared to oral ART users, CAB+RPV LA users were younger, on their prior regimen less time and more likely to switch from an INSTI; median CD4 counts at initiation were similar. At study end, 81% of CAB+RPV LA users and 80% of oral ART users were on their respective regimens. CVF risk with CAB+RPV LA did not statistically differ compared to oral ART (adjusted odds ratio: 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34, 1.14). Among CAB+RPV LA users, only baseline CD4 predicted CVF; every 100 CD4 cells/µl increase was associated with 20% lower CVF risk (OR [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.64, 0.97]).
conclusionsIn the United States, routine clinical care, CVF risk did not differ between a switch to CAB+RPV LA or new oral ART, with most individuals remaining on their regimens at study end. Lower CD4 count at initiation was the only predictor of CVF on CAB+RPV LA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.