Dataset Information

Patient-reported outcomes among people living with HIV on single- versus multi-tablet regimens: Data from a real-life setting.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of single-tablet regimens (STRs) in HIV treatment is ubiquitous. However, reintroducing the (generic) components as multi-tablet regimens (MTRs) could be an interesting cost-reducing strategy. It is essential to involve patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) to examine the effects of such an approach. Hence, this study compared PROs of people living with HIV taking an STR versus a MTR in a real world setting.

Materials and methods

This longitudinal study included 188 people living with HIV. 132 remained on a MTR and 56 switched to an STR. At baseline, months 1-3-6-12-18 and 24, participants filled in questionnaires on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), depressive symptoms, HIV symptoms, neurocognitive complaints (NCC), treatment satisfaction and adherence. Generalized linear mixed models and generalized estimation equations mixed models were built.

Results

Clinical parameters and PROs of the two groups were comparable at baseline. Neurocognitive complaints and treatment satisfaction did differ over time among the groups. In the STR-group, the odds of having NCC increased monthly by 4,1% as compared to the MTR-group (p = 0.035). Moreover, people taking an STR were more satisfied with their treatment after 6 months: the median change score was high: 24 (IQR 7,5-29). Further, treatment satisfaction showed a contrary evolution in the groups: the estimated state score of the STR-group increased by 3,3 while it decreased by 0,2 in the MTR-group (p = 0.003). No differences over time between the groups were observed with regard to HRQoL, HIV symptoms, depressive symptoms and adherence.

Conclusions

Neurocognitive complaints were more frequently reported among people on an STR versus MTR. This finding contrasts with the higher treatment satisfaction in the STR-group over time. The long-term effects of both PROs should guide the decision-making on STRs vs. (generic) MTRs.

SUBMITTER: Degroote S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8758085 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Availability of a single source review of once-daily fixed-dose single tablet regimen (STR) and multiple tablet fixed-dose regimen (MTR) would optimally inform healthcare providers and policy makers involved in the management of population with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).We conducted a meta-analysis of published literature to compare patient adherence, clinical, and cost outcomes of STR to MTR.Published literature in English between 2005 and 2014 was searched using Embase, PubMed (Medline in-process), and ClinicalTrials.Gov databases. Two-level screening was undertaken by 2 independent researchers to finalize articles for evidence synthesis. Adherence, efficacy, safety, tolerability, healthcare resource use (HRU), and costs were assessed comparing STR to MTR. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed and heterogeneity examined using meta-regression.Thirty-five articles were identified for qualitative evidence synthesis, of which 9 had quantifiable data for meta-analysis (4 randomized controlled trials and 5 observational studies). Patients on STR were significantly more adherent when compared to patients on MTR of any frequency (odds ratio [OR]: 2.37 [95% CI: 1.68, 3.35], P < 0.001; 4 studies), twice-daily MTR (OR: 2.53 [95% CI: 1.13, 5.66], P = 0.02; 2 studies), and once-daily MTR (OR: 1.81 [95% CI: 1.15, 2.84], P = 0.01; 2 studies). The relative risk (RR) for viral load suppression at 48 weeks was higher (RR: 1.09 [95% CI: 1.04, 1.15], P = .0003; 3 studies) while RR of grade 3 to 4 laboratory abnormalities was lower among patients on STR (RR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.49, 0.94], P = 0.02; 2 studies). Changes in CD4 count at 48 weeks, any severe adverse events (SAEs), grade 3 to 4 AEs, mortality, and tolerability were found comparable between STR and MTR. Several studies reported significant reduction in HRU and costs among STR group versus MTR.Study depicted comparable tolerability, safety (All-SAE and Grade 3-4 AE), and mortality and fewer Grade 3 to 4 lab abnormalities and better viral load suppression and adherence among patients on FDC-containing STR versus MTR; literature depicted favorable HRU and costs for STRs.These findings may help decision makers especially in resource-poor settings to plan for optimal HIV disease management when the choice of both STRs and MTRs are available.

Project description:Combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) has evolved considerably over the past decades leading to a better control of human immunodeficiency virus replication. Recently, regimens have evolved so as to simplify dosing frequency and reduce pill burden to improve adherence. Several national and international guidelines suggest antiretroviral (ARV) regimen simplification as a method of improving adherence. Decreased cART adherence has been associated with both patient-related factors and regimen-related factors. Adherence rates are statistically higher when simpler, once-daily (OD) regimens are combined with smaller daily regimen pill burdens. The avoidance of selective non-adherence, where a patient takes part of a regimen but not the full regimen, is a further potential benefit offered by single-tablet regimens (STRs). Simplification of cART has been associated with a better quality of life (QoL). Although tempered by other factors, better adherence, higher QoL and patients' preferences are all key points which might combine to assure long-lasting efficacy and durability of cART. All studies underlined the favorable tolerability profile of newer STRs. Three STRs are currently available. Tenofovir (TDF) plus emtricitabine (FTC)/efavirenz (EFV) was the first OD complete ARV regimen available as a STR. TDF plus FTC/rilpivirine is a second-generation STR. The most recently approved STR, TDF plus FTC/cobicistat/elvitegravir, is the first non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based STR. All of them have shown excellent efficacy; safety and tolerability have been improved by more recent formulations. Several other STRs are anticipated both combining completely different drugs, abacavir (ABC) plus lamivudine (3TC)/dolutegravir, utilizing innovative formulations of older drugs, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, or taking advance of bioequivalent drugs, lamivudine (3TC) plus ABC/EFV. The future challenge would be to develop completely alternative STRs (including for example protease inhibitors or new molecules) to extend the advantages of simplicity to heavily pre-treated individuals.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-reported substance use is more likely to be influenced by underreporting bias compared to the biological markers. Underreporting bias or validity of self-reported substance use depends on the study population and cannot be generalized to the entire population. This study aimed to compare the validity of self-reported substance use between research setting and primary health care setting from the same source population.Methods and materialsThe population in this study included from Rafsanjan Youth Cohort Study (RYCS) and from primary care health centers. The sample from RYCS is made up 607 participants, 113 (18.62%) women and 494 (81.38%) men and sample from PHC centers is made up 522 individuals including 252 (48.28%) women and 270 (51.72%) men. We compared two groups in respect of prevalence estimates based on self-reported substance use and urine test. Then for evaluating validity of self-reported substance use in both group, the results of reference standard, urine tests, were compared with the results of self-reported drug use using measures of concordance.ResultsThe prevalence of substance use based on urine test was significantly higher in both settings compared to self-reported substance use over the past 72 h. The sensitivity of self-report substance use over the past 72 h in research setting was 39.4, 20, 10% and zero for opium, methadone, cannabis and amphetamine, respectively and in primary health care setting was 50, 20.7, 12.5% and zero for opium, methadone, cannabis and amphetamine, respectively. The level of agreement between self-reported substance use over the past 72 h and urine test indicated fair and moderate agreement for opium in both research and primary health care settings, respectively and also slight agreement for methadone and cannabis in both settings were reported. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of self-reported substance use. For all substances, the level of agreement increased with longer recall periods. The specificity of self-report for all substances in both groups was more than 99%.ConclusionIndividuals in primary health care setting were more likely to self-reported substance use than in research setting, but setting did not have a statistically significant effect in terms of self-reported substance use. Programs that rely on self-reported substance use may not estimate the exact prevalence of substance use in both research and primary health care settings, especially for substances that have a higher social stigma. Therefore, it is recommended that self-report and biological indicators be used for more accurate evaluation in substance use studies. It is also suggested that future epidemiological studies be performed to reduce bias of social desirability and find a method providing the highest level of privacy.