Factors associated with optimal pharmacy refill adherence for antiretroviral medications and plasma HIV RNA non-detectability among HIV-positive crack cocaine users: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crack cocaine use is known to contribute to poor adherence to antiretroviral medications; however, little is known about facilitators of or barriers to effective HIV treatment use among HIV-infected crack cocaine users. We sought to identify correlates of optimal pharmacy refill adherence for antiretroviral medications and plasma HIV RNA viral load (pVL) suppression among this population. METHODS: Data from a prospective cohort of HIV-positive people who use illicit drugs in Vancouver, Canada, were linked to comprehensive HIV clinical monitoring and pharmacy dispensation records. We used multivariable generalized linear mixed-effects modelling to longitudinally identify factors associated with ≥95 % adherence to pharmacy refills for antiretroviral medications and pVL <50 copies/mL among crack cocaine users exposed to highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). RESULTS: Among 438 HAART-exposed crack cocaine users between 2005 and 2013, 240 (54.8 %) had ≥95 % pharmacy refill adherence in the previous 6 months at baseline. In multivariable analyses, homelessness (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.58), ≥daily crack cocaine smoking (AOR: 0.64), and ≥ daily heroin use (AOR: 0.43) were independently associated with optimal pharmacy refill adherence (all p < 0.05). The results for pVL non-detectability were consistent with those of medication adherence, except that longer history of HAART (AOR: 1.06), receiving a single tablet-per-day regimen (AOR: 3.02) and participation in opioid substitution therapies was independently associated with pVL non-detectability (AOR: 1.55) (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Homelessness, and daily crack cocaine and/or heroin use were independently and negatively associated with optimal HAART-related outcomes. With the exception of opioid substitution therapies, no addiction treatment modalities assessed appeared to facilitate medication adherence or viral suppression. Evidence-based treatment options for crack cocaine use that also confer benefits to HAART need to be developed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".