Dose–response relationship between methadone dose and adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV‐positive people who use illicit opioids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: For HIV-positive individuals who use illicit opioids, engagement in methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) can contribute to improved HIV treatment outcomes. However, to our knowledge, the role of methadone dosing in adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) has not yet been investigated. We sought to examine the relationship between methadone dose and ART adherence among a cohort of people who use illicit opioids. DESIGN AND SETTING: We used data from the AIDS Care Cohort to Evaluate Access to Survival Services (ACCESS) study, an ongoing prospective observational cohort of HIV-positive people who use illicit drugs in Vancouver, Canada, linked confidentially to comprehensive HIV treatment data in a setting of universal no-cost medical care, including medications. We evaluated the longitudinal relationship between methadone dose and the likelihood of ≥ 95% adherence to ART among ART-exposed participants during periods of engagement in MMT. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and ninety-seven ART-exposed individuals on MMT were recruited between December 2005 and May 2013 and followed for a median of 42.1 months. MEASUREMENTS: We measured methadone dose at ≥ 100 versus < 100 mg/day and the likelihood of ≥ 95% adherence to ART. FINDINGS: In adjusted generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses, MMT dose ≥ 100 mg/day was associated independently with optimal adherence to ART [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08-1.77). In a subanalysis, we observed a dose-response relationship between increasing MMT dose and ART adherence (AOR = 1.06 per 20 mg/day increase, 95% CI = 1.00-1.12). CONCLUSION: Among HIV-positive individuals in methadone maintenance therapy, those receiving higher doses of methadone (≥ 100 mg/day) are more likely to achieve ≥ 95% adherence to antiretroviral therapy than those receiving lower doses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".