4.7 Article

Pillbox organizers are associated with improved adherence to HIV antiretroviral therapy and viral suppression: A marginal structural model analysis

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 45, 期 7, 页码 908-915

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/521250

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI074345, R01 AI074345-01A1] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM071397] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH054907, K24 MH087227] Funding Source: Medline
  4. PHS HHS [NIMH 54907, NIMH 63011] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Pillbox organizers are inexpensive and easily used; however, their effect on adherence to antiretroviral medications is unknown. Methods. Data were obtained from an observational cohort of 245 human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV) infected subjects who were observed from 1996 through 2000 in San Francisco, California. Adherence was the primary outcome and was measured using unannounced monthly pill counts. Plasma HIV RNA level was considered as a secondary outcome. Marginal structural models were used to estimate the effect of pillbox organizer use on adherence and viral suppression, adjusting for confounding by CD4(+) T cell count, viral load, prior adherence, recreational drug use, demographic characteristics, and current and past treatment. Results. Pillbox organizer use was estimated to improve adherence by 4.1%-4.5% and was associated with a decrease in viral load of 0.34-0.37 log(10) copies/mL and a 14.2%-15.7% higher probability of achieving a viral load <= 400 copies/mL (odds ratio, 1.8-1.9). All effect estimates were statistically significant. Conclusion. Pillbox organizers appear to significantly improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy and to improve virologic suppression. We estimate that pillbox organizers may be associated with a cost of similar to$ 19,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Pillbox organizers should be a standard intervention to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy.

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

4.7
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