The Impact of Non-Antiretroviral Polypharmacy on the Continuity of Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Among HIV Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improved survival achieved by many patients with HIV/AIDS has complicated their medical care as increasing numbers of co-morbidities leads to polypharmacy, increased pill burdens, and greater risks of drug-drug interactions potentially compromising antiretroviral treatment (ART). We examined the impact of non-antiretroviral polypharmacy on ART for all adults followed at the Southern Alberta Clinic, Calgary, Canada. Polypharmacy was defined as ≥5 daily medications. We compared the impact of polypharmacy on continuous (i.e., remaining on same ART for ≥6 months) vs. non-continuous (i.e., discontinuing or switching ART) ART dosing frequency, number of ART pills, number of non-ART medications, and age. Of 1190 (89.5%) patients on ART, 95% were on three-drug regimens, 63.9% on QD ART, and 62% ≥3 ART pills daily; 32.2% were experiencing polypharmacy. Polypharmacy was associated with lower CD4, AIDS, >180 months living with HIV, higher numbers of ART pills, and older age (all p < 0.01); 32.1% stopped or switched ART. Polypharmacy increased the risk for non-continuous ART (36.8% vs. 30.0%; p < 0.01). Non-continuous ART increased with daily ART pill count but not increased age. Non-adherence and adverse effects accounted for the majority of non-continuous ART. We found a strong association between polypharmacy and non-continuous ART, potentially leading to effective ART being compromised. Collaborative approaches are needed to anticipate the negative impacts of polypharmacy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".