PubMed HealthSearch

Biomedical subjects

Yi-Chun Lin

Publications and source records attributed to Yi-Chun Lin.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Direct Initiation of Long-Acting Cabotegravir Plus Rilpivirine in People with HIV and Suboptimal Virologic Suppression: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir plus rilpivirine (LA CAB+RPV) is approved for virally suppressed people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but evidence for its use in those with persistent viremia and adherence challenges remains limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized study involving oral antiretroviral therapy (ART)-experienced people with HIV who had been diagnosed with HIV for at least 12 months and a most recent HIV-1 RNA level of at least 200 copies per milliliter. Participants with resistance-associated mutations to CAB or RPV were excluded. Eligible participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive immediate LA CAB+RPV or to continue standard oral therapy until Week 24 (delayed switch group). The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 200 copies per milliliter at Week 24. RESULTS: Of 61 randomized participants, 45 met eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis; 91% were male, and the median baseline HIV-1 RNA was 35,000 copies/mL. At Week 24, viral suppression was achieved in 88.0% (22/25) in the immediate LA group versus 55.0% (11/20) in the delayed switch group (relative risk for failure to achieve viral suppression, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.86; p = 0.026). The effect of LA CAB+RPV was sustained through Week 52. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with HIV and viremia associated with adherence challenges, immediate initiation of LA CAB+RPV resulted in higher rates of viral suppression than continued oral ART, supporting its use beyond populations with stable suppression.

HIV

Comparative effectiveness of game-based learning modalities in nursing and medical education: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Game-based learning (GBL) is increasingly used in healthcare education, but educators must choose among diverse modalities (e.g., quiz platforms, apps, serious games and metaverse environments). Comparative evidence on which modalities perform best across learning domains (knowledge, attitudes, and practice) remains limited. AIM: To compare the effects of distinct GBL modalities on knowledge, attitudes, and practice outcomes in nursing and medical education and to explore whether comparative effects differ by learner group (pre-licensure students and in-service professionals). DESIGN: PRISMA-NMA-aligned systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched eight databases and trial registries through September 2, 2024, for randomized controlled trials comparing GBL with traditional teaching (TT). Outcomes were transformed to a 0-100 scale and analysed as change from baseline in Bayesian consistency models; random-effects models were selected using deviance information criterion (DIC). Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2. We report mean differences (MDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) versus TT, ranking probabilities, and subgroup NMAs by learner group. RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs (n = 3439) were included; 15 contributed complete data to the network. Risk of bias was low in 15 trials and raised some concerns in 16. The network was modest for knowledge (11 trials) and sparse for attitudes (3) and practice (4). Compared with TT, metaverse-based learning showed improved attitudes (MD 15; 95% CrI 12 to 18), based on a single trial. For knowledge and practice, Kahoot-based quizzes (MD 9.1; 95% CrI -8.9 to 27) and app-based learning (MD 4.6; 95% CrI -4.4 to 14) had the highest estimated mean improvements, but credible intervals were wide and included the null for most comparisons. Subgroup rankings differed by learner group, but several comparisons were imprecise and uncertainty was substantial, particularly in sparse networks. CONCLUSIONS: GBL modalities may improve learning outcomes compared with TT, but relative effects appear domain-specific and the certainty of rankings is limited by sparse evidence and imprecision. Future trials should prioritise head-to-head comparisons, robust outcome measurement, and longer-term retention and transfer outcomes in both student and in-service populations.

Humans