Cargando…

Comparison of six methods to estimate adherence in an ART-naïve cohort in a resource-poor setting: which best predicts virological and resistance outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Incomplete adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) results in virologic failure and resistance. It remains unclear which adherence measure best predicts these outcomes. We compared six patient-reported and objective adherence measures in one ART-naïve cohort in South Africa. METHODS: W...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Orrell, Catherine, Cohen, Karen, Leisegang, Rory, Bangsberg, David R., Wood, Robin, Maartens, Gary
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379739/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28376815
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12981-017-0138-y
_version_ 1782519667366035456
author Orrell, Catherine
Cohen, Karen
Leisegang, Rory
Bangsberg, David R.
Wood, Robin
Maartens, Gary
author_facet Orrell, Catherine
Cohen, Karen
Leisegang, Rory
Bangsberg, David R.
Wood, Robin
Maartens, Gary
author_sort Orrell, Catherine
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Incomplete adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) results in virologic failure and resistance. It remains unclear which adherence measure best predicts these outcomes. We compared six patient-reported and objective adherence measures in one ART-naïve cohort in South Africa. METHODS: We recruited 230 participants from a community ART clinic and prospectively collected demographic data, CD4 count and HIV-RNA at weeks 0, 16 and 48. We quantified adherence using 3-day self-report (SR), clinic-based pill count (CPC), average adherence by pharmacy refill (PR-average), calculation of medication-free days (PR-gaps), efavirenz therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and an electronic adherence monitoring device (EAMD). Associations between adherence measures and virologic and genotypic outcomes were modelled using logistic regression, with the area under the curve (AUC) from the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses derived to assess performance of adherence measures in predicting outcomes. RESULTS: At week 48 median (IQR) adherence was: SR 100% (100–100), CPC 100% (95–107), PR-average 103% (95–105), PR-gaps 100% (95–100) and EAMD 86% (59–94), and efavirenz concentrations were therapeutic (>1 mg/L) in 92%. EAMD, PR-average, PR-gaps and CPC best predicted virological outcome at week 48 with AUC ROC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.61–0.83), 0.73 (95% CI 0.61–0.85), 0.72 (95% CI 0.59–0.84) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.52–0.76) respectively. EAMD, PR-gaps and PR-average were highly predictive of detection of resistance mutations at week 48, with AUC ROC of 0.92 (95% CI 0.87–0.97), 0.86 (0.67–1.0) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.65–1.0) respectively. SR and TDM were poorly predictive of outcomes at week 48. CONCLUSION: EAMD and both PR measures predicted resistance and virological failure similarly. Pharmacy refill data is a pragmatic adherence measure in resource-limited settings where electronic monitoring is unavailable. Trial registration The trial was retrospectively registered in the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201311000641402, on the 13 Sep 2013 (www.pactr.org). The first participant was enrolled on the 12th July 2012. The last patient last visit (week 48) was 15 April 2014 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12981-017-0138-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5379739
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53797392017-04-10 Comparison of six methods to estimate adherence in an ART-naïve cohort in a resource-poor setting: which best predicts virological and resistance outcomes? Orrell, Catherine Cohen, Karen Leisegang, Rory Bangsberg, David R. Wood, Robin Maartens, Gary AIDS Res Ther Research BACKGROUND: Incomplete adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) results in virologic failure and resistance. It remains unclear which adherence measure best predicts these outcomes. We compared six patient-reported and objective adherence measures in one ART-naïve cohort in South Africa. METHODS: We recruited 230 participants from a community ART clinic and prospectively collected demographic data, CD4 count and HIV-RNA at weeks 0, 16 and 48. We quantified adherence using 3-day self-report (SR), clinic-based pill count (CPC), average adherence by pharmacy refill (PR-average), calculation of medication-free days (PR-gaps), efavirenz therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and an electronic adherence monitoring device (EAMD). Associations between adherence measures and virologic and genotypic outcomes were modelled using logistic regression, with the area under the curve (AUC) from the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses derived to assess performance of adherence measures in predicting outcomes. RESULTS: At week 48 median (IQR) adherence was: SR 100% (100–100), CPC 100% (95–107), PR-average 103% (95–105), PR-gaps 100% (95–100) and EAMD 86% (59–94), and efavirenz concentrations were therapeutic (>1 mg/L) in 92%. EAMD, PR-average, PR-gaps and CPC best predicted virological outcome at week 48 with AUC ROC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.61–0.83), 0.73 (95% CI 0.61–0.85), 0.72 (95% CI 0.59–0.84) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.52–0.76) respectively. EAMD, PR-gaps and PR-average were highly predictive of detection of resistance mutations at week 48, with AUC ROC of 0.92 (95% CI 0.87–0.97), 0.86 (0.67–1.0) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.65–1.0) respectively. SR and TDM were poorly predictive of outcomes at week 48. CONCLUSION: EAMD and both PR measures predicted resistance and virological failure similarly. Pharmacy refill data is a pragmatic adherence measure in resource-limited settings where electronic monitoring is unavailable. Trial registration The trial was retrospectively registered in the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201311000641402, on the 13 Sep 2013 (www.pactr.org). The first participant was enrolled on the 12th July 2012. The last patient last visit (week 48) was 15 April 2014 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12981-017-0138-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5379739/ /pubmed/28376815 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12981-017-0138-y Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Orrell, Catherine
Cohen, Karen
Leisegang, Rory
Bangsberg, David R.
Wood, Robin
Maartens, Gary
Comparison of six methods to estimate adherence in an ART-naïve cohort in a resource-poor setting: which best predicts virological and resistance outcomes?
title Comparison of six methods to estimate adherence in an ART-naïve cohort in a resource-poor setting: which best predicts virological and resistance outcomes?
title_full Comparison of six methods to estimate adherence in an ART-naïve cohort in a resource-poor setting: which best predicts virological and resistance outcomes?
title_fullStr Comparison of six methods to estimate adherence in an ART-naïve cohort in a resource-poor setting: which best predicts virological and resistance outcomes?
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of six methods to estimate adherence in an ART-naïve cohort in a resource-poor setting: which best predicts virological and resistance outcomes?
title_short Comparison of six methods to estimate adherence in an ART-naïve cohort in a resource-poor setting: which best predicts virological and resistance outcomes?
title_sort comparison of six methods to estimate adherence in an art-naïve cohort in a resource-poor setting: which best predicts virological and resistance outcomes?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379739/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28376815
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12981-017-0138-y
work_keys_str_mv AT orrellcatherine comparisonofsixmethodstoestimateadherenceinanartnaivecohortinaresourcepoorsettingwhichbestpredictsvirologicalandresistanceoutcomes
AT cohenkaren comparisonofsixmethodstoestimateadherenceinanartnaivecohortinaresourcepoorsettingwhichbestpredictsvirologicalandresistanceoutcomes
AT leisegangrory comparisonofsixmethodstoestimateadherenceinanartnaivecohortinaresourcepoorsettingwhichbestpredictsvirologicalandresistanceoutcomes
AT bangsbergdavidr comparisonofsixmethodstoestimateadherenceinanartnaivecohortinaresourcepoorsettingwhichbestpredictsvirologicalandresistanceoutcomes
AT woodrobin comparisonofsixmethodstoestimateadherenceinanartnaivecohortinaresourcepoorsettingwhichbestpredictsvirologicalandresistanceoutcomes
AT maartensgary comparisonofsixmethodstoestimateadherenceinanartnaivecohortinaresourcepoorsettingwhichbestpredictsvirologicalandresistanceoutcomes