Evolving patterns of antiretroviral drug interactions in people with HIV in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To characterize the annual prevalence of antiretroviral/nonantiretroviral drug interactions in relation to antiretroviral therapy (ART)-prescribing patterns, and to describe drug interaction-related ART changes. DESIGN/METHODS: This cohort study included ART-treated adults in British Columbia, Canada between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2016. Medication dispensing records were abstracted from a population-based, linked administrative-health dataset and used to identify antiretroviral-comedication drug interactions ('caution'/'avoid' drug interactions in HIV-focused drug interaction checkers). We identified temporal trends in annual drug interaction prevalence and quantified the association between taking higher drug interaction-risk ART and receiving nonrecommended antiretroviral-comedication combinations using Poisson regression models, modified for binary outcomes and correlated data. Clinician-reported, drug interaction-related ART changes and associated adverse events were abstracted from an HIV drug treatment registry and summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Among 8571 ART-treated adults who received nonantiretroviral comedications, prevalence of having any drug interaction or receiving nonrecommended drug combination(s) significantly declined from 85 to 71% and 5.6 to 3.2%, respectively, between 2010 and 2016 ( P < 0.001). This paralleled a shift from higher drug interaction-risk ART (e.g. ritonavir/cobicistat-boosted protease inhibitors) to lower drug interaction-risk ART (e.g. unboosted integrase inhibitors). Risk of receiving a nonrecommended antiretroviral-comedication combination was greater for persons taking higher vs. lower drug interaction-risk ART [adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 3.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24-4.35]. Boosted antiretroviral-inhaled corticosteroid drug interactions accounted for the most commonly dispensed, nonrecommended drug combinations, and the most commonly reported drug interaction-related adverse events (adrenal insufficiency). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of antiretroviral-comedication drug interactions is declining as ART shifts towards antiretrovirals with lower drug interaction potential but nonrecommended drug combinations remain a concern. Healthcare providers should screen for drug interactions whenever drugs are prescribed or dispensed.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".