Concomitant medication polypharmacy, interactions and imperfect adherence are common in Australian adults on suppressive antiretroviral therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We quantified concomitant medication polypharmacy, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions, adverse effects and adherence in Australian adults on effective antiretroviral therapy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: Patients recruited into a nationwide cohort and assessed for prevalence and type of concomitant medication (including polypharmacy, defined as ≥5 concomitant medications), pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interactions, potential concomitant medication adverse effects and concomitant medication adherence. Factors associated with concomitant medication polypharmacy and with imperfect adherence were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 522 participants, 392 (75%) took a concomitant medication (mostly cardiovascular, nonprescription or antidepressant). Overall, 280 participants (54%) had polypharmacy of concomitant medications and/or a drug interaction or contraindication. Polypharmacy was present in 122 (23%) and independently associated with clinical trial participation, renal impairment, major comorbidity, hospital/general practice-based HIV care (versus sexual health clinic) and benzodiazepine use. Seventeen participants (3%) took at least one concomitant medication contraindicated with their antiretroviral therapy, and 237 (45%) had at least one pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic interaction. Concomitant medication use was significantly associated with sleep disturbance and myalgia, and polypharmacy of concomitant medications with diarrhoea, fatigue, myalgia and peripheral neuropathy. Sixty participants (12%) reported imperfect concomitant medication adherence, independently associated with requiring financial support, foregoing necessities for financial reasons, good/very good self-reported general health and at least 1 bed day for illness in the previous 12 months. CONCLUSION: In a resource-rich setting with universal healthcare access, the majority of this sample took a concomitant medication. Over half had at least one of concomitant medication polypharmacy, pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interaction. Concomitant medication use was associated with several adverse clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".