Adherence to Once-daily and Twice-daily Direct-acting Antiviral Therapy for Hepatitis C Infection Among People With Recent Injection Drug Use or Current Opioid Agonist Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated adherence and associated factors among people with recent injection drug use (IDU) or current opioid agonist therapy (OAT) and compared once-daily to twice-daily hepatitis C virus (HCV) direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy. METHODS: SIMPLIFY and D3FEAT are international, multicenter studies that recruited participants with recent IDU (previous 6 months; SIMPLIFY, D3FEAT) or current OAT (D3FEAT) between March 2016 and February 2017 in 8 countries. Participants received sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (once daily; SIMPLIFY) or paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir, dasabuvir (twice daily) ± ribavirin (D3FEAT) for 12 weeks administered in electronic blister packs. We evaluated overall adherence (proportion of prescribed doses taken) and nonadherence (<90% adherent) between dosing patterns. RESULTS: Of 190 participants, 184 (97%) completed treatment. Median adherence was 92%, with higher adherence among those receiving once-daily vs twice-daily therapy (94% vs 87%, P = .005). Overall, 40% of participants (n = 76) were nonadherent (<90% adherent). Recent stimulant injecting (odds ratio [OR], 2.48 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.28-4.82]), unstable housing (OR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.01-4.70]), and twice-daily dosing (OR, 2.81 [95% CI, 1.47-5.36]) were associated with nonadherence. Adherence decreased during therapy. Sustained virologic response was high in nonadherent (89%) and adherent populations (95%, P = .174), with no difference in SVR between those who did and did not miss 7 consecutive doses (92% vs 93%, P = .897). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated high adherence to once- and twice-daily DAA therapy among people with recent IDU or currently receiving OAT. Nonadherence described did not impact treatment outcomes, suggesting forgiveness to nonadherence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".