Back

Adherence, Adverse Events and Viral Control among Children and Adolescents with HIV in Zambia Switched to an Integrase Inhibitor Regimen

Bearden, D. R.; Sportiello, K.; Mweemba, M.; Lungu, F.; Mwanza-Kabaghe, S.; Birbeck, G. L.

2024-09-18 hiv aids
10.1101/2024.09.17.24313837 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundBased on recent World Health Organization recommendations, there has been a large-scale transition in Sub-Saharan Africa to integrase inhibitor (II)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens. SettingThis study was conducted at an urban referral center in Lusaka, Zambia. MethodsThis study included 297 children and adolescents with HIV (CAWH) on ART for one year prior to enrollment and followed for 1-4 years after enrollment. ART adherence, ART regimen, and viral load were assessed periodically. Structured interviews were conducted with a subset of 95 children to assess adherence barriers and side effects. ResultsChildren on protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimens were more likely to report adherence problems than children taking II- or Efavirenz-based regimens (10% vs. 28%, p=0.03) and noted more days with missed doses (median 1 vs. 0, p=0.02). In interviews, the most common reasons given for poor adherence included bad medication taste, not being home when medications were due, and perceived side effects. The PI group was more likely to report that taste was a problem affecting adherence (22% vs. 4%, p=0.05) and headache as an ART side effect (17% vs. 4%, p=0.05). Switching from a PI- to an II-based regimen was associated with improved adherence (72% vs. 92%, p=0.01) and an undetectable viral load (67% vs. 78%). ConclusionsSwitching CAWH from PI-based to II-based regimens has many advantages including superior side effect profiles, adherence, and viral suppression. PI taste aversion may be a significant contributor to pediatric adherence issues. Palatability should be considered in pediatric HIV drug development.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.