Consequences and Determinants of Adherence to Antiretroviral Medication: Results from Adult Aids Clinical Trials Group Protocol 370
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To document rates and patterns of adherence from enrollment until week 24 of an AIDS clinical trial; (2) to examine the association of adherence to clinical end-points including plasma HIV-1 RNA level and CD4 cell count; and (3) to identify predictors of adherence from clinical, behavioural, psychosocial and demographic factors. DESIGN: Sub-study of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, comparison-controlled trial; 21 collaborating units of the Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group. Observational, prospective analysis. METHODS: Ninety-three subjects with baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA levels >500 copies/ml, who completed clinical assessment, plasma HIV-1 RNA titres and CD4 cell counts at study entry, weeks 2, 4 and every 4 weeks thereafter until week 24. All patients were antiretroviral-experienced but were naive to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors. Self-reported adherence to antiretroviral therapies prescribed as part of the trial was assessed every 4 weeks from trial, week 4 until week 24. RESULTS: Average adherence was high, with 63% of subjects reporting >95% adherence across the trial. However, there was a significant decline in adherence over time on trial. After controlling for potential confounding variables, patients who were less than 95% adherent to medications were 3.5-times more likely to have treatment failure (HIV-1 RNA >50 copies/ml) than subjects with adherence rates of 95-100%. The strongest predictor of adherence was adverse clinical events (for example, dermatological, gastrointestinal symptoms): patients with adverse events were 12.8-times less likely to have 95-100% adherence. Other clinical, demographic, psychosocial and behavioural factors were also significant predictors of adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence influences virological outcome even in AIDS clinical trials where overall adherence rates are high and should therefore be monitored in future trials. Intervention may be warranted to enhance adherence for subjects who have early toxicities, express concern about taking medications as directed, and for women and minorities.
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 | 0.057 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.010 |
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".