4.3 Article

Heavy Alcohol Use is Associated with Lower CD4 Counts among Russian Women Living with HIV: A Multilevel Analysis

Journal

AIDS AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 25, Issue 11, Pages 3734-3742

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-021-03270-4

Keywords

Alcohol use; HIV; Russia; Women; Phosphatidylethanol; HIV disease outcomes

Funding

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [R03DA0377860, 1U01DA0362233]
  2. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [1R01AA018096]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study revealed that heavy drinking is prevalent among Russian women with HIV infection, and it is associated with decreased CD4 cell count, increased HIV symptom burden, and suboptimal antiretroviral adherence. These findings support the integration of alcohol treatment interventions as part of routine HIV care in Russia.
Alcohol use remains prevalent among Russian women with HIV infection. Multilevel mixed effects models were used to estimate the association of heavy drinking and HIV outcomes among women (N = 250 at baseline; N = 207 at follow-up), aged 18-35, engaged in HIV care in Saint Petersburg. Alcohol use was assessed at baseline and 3 months by self-report and by the biomarker phosphatidylethanol (PEth). Overall, 35% of women were heavy drinkers, defined as women reporting >= 1 past-30-day heavy drinking episode (>= 4 standard drinks on one occasion) or with PEth blood levels >= 80 ng/mL. Women who engaged in heavy drinking had an average 41 CD4 cells/mm(3) (95% CI = - 81, - 2; z = - 2.04; P = 0.042) fewer than those who did not. Heavy drinking was associated with higher HIV symptom burden (IRR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.05, 1.36; z = 2.73; P = 0.006) and suboptimal antiretroviral adherence (OR = 3.04; 95% CI = 1.27, 7.28; chi(2) = 2.50; P = 0.013), but not with viral load. Findings support the integration of alcohol treatment interventions as part of routine HIV care in Russia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available