4.4 Article

A single tablet regimen is associated with higher adherence and viral suppression than multiple tablet regimens in HIV plus homeless and marginally housed people

期刊

AIDS
卷 24, 期 18, 页码 2835-2840

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328340a209

关键词

adherence; dosing frequency; drug use; homeless; mental illness; once daily; one pill; pill-burden

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [MH54907, AI069994]
  2. UCSF Clinical and Translational Research Institute Clinical Research Center [UL1 RR024131]
  3. Gilead Sciences
  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  5. [MH87227]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although, single-tablet regimen (STR) efavirenz, emtricibine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (EFV/FTC/TDF) may be appealing in HIV-infected persons who are at high risk for nonadherence, the degree to which this simplified formulation affects adherence is not known. The virologic effectiveness of this STR in a potentially nonadherent population remains a concern, given the rapid selection of drug resistance seen with these drugs. Method: We performed a prospective observational study assessing adherence and virologic response to EFV/FTC/TDF STR among a cohort of homeless and marginally housed individuals. We compared adherence and viral suppression to historical controls followed in the same cohort. Results: Adherence was higher in EFV/FTC/TDF STR regimen compared to non-one-pill-once-daily therapy (P = 0.006) after controlling for multiple confounders. Viral suppression (HIV RNA <50 copies/ml) was greater in EFV/FTC/TDF STR than non-one-pill-once-daily regimens (69.2 versus 46.5%; P = 0.02), but there was no difference in viral suppression after controlling for adherence. Conclusion: Once-daily EFV/TNF/FTC STR appears to be a reasonable option for individuals with multiple barriers to adherence. Randomized clinical trials addressing various therapeutic strategies for this patient population are needed. (C) 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据