Upload
hilary-anthony
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Adherence Interventions to Improve HIV Treatment Outcomes
David R Bangsberg
Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Global HealthHarvard Medical School
Harvard Initiative for Global HealthJune, 2010
Outline
• Adherence goals• Simple stuff to improve adherence• RCT intervention summary• RCT intervention highlights • Cost effectiveness of ART adherence
interventions• Future directions in adherence interventions
MEMS Adherence and Viral Suppression
Paterson DL, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:21-30.
19%
29% 33%
45%
78%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
<70 70-80 80-90 90-95 95
% Adherent
% P
atie
nts
wit
h
vira
l lo
ad <
400
cop
ies/
ml
NNRTI Lead to Better Viral Suppression (<400 copies/ml) than Unboosted PIs at Moderate Electronic
Medication Monitor Adherencen=65
23%33%
67%
83%
33%
100%
86%75%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0-53 54-73 74-93 94-100
Adherence
Per
cent
VL
<40
0 co
pies
/ml
PINNRTI
p=0.01
Bangsberg CID 2006:43:939-41
Stopping drugs with different half lives
0 24 483612
Time (hours)
Dru
g c
on
cen
trat
ion
Zone of potential replication
IC90
IC50
Last Dose
Day 1Day 1 Day 2Day 2
MONOTHERAPY
S. Taylor et al. 11th CROI Abs 131
NNRTI Resistance and Treatment DiscontinuationParienti et al CID 2004:38:1311-6
No. patients at Risk≤1 drug holiday 52 47 38 30 19 4>= 2 drug holidays 19 17 13 10 6 1
The Risk of Virologic Failure Decreases with Duration of Continuous Viral Suppression in 221 Suppressed Patients
M. Rosenblum et al PLOS One 2009
Adherence Goals
• Goals– Prevent HIV-related mortality– Prevent evolution of drug resistance
• Sustain adherence above 70%
• Prevent treatment interruptions on NNRTI based therapy
– Adherence is important all the time, but especially important after initiating treatment
Outline
• Adherence goals• Simple stuff to improve adherence• RCT intervention summary• RCT intervention highlights • Cost effectiveness of ART adherence
interventions• Future directions in adherence interventions
Pill box organizers improve adherence and reduce viral load
ML Petersen et al Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Oct 1;45(7):908-15
MSM Estimator
Difference in % Adherence
95% CI Difference in Log VL
95% CI OR VL<400
95% CI
G-Comp 4.5% (2.0, 7.0) -0.34 (0.08, 0.60) 1.81 (1.25, 2.62)
IPTW 4.1% (0.0, 8.3) -0.37 (0.05, 0.69) 1.91 (1.27, 2.90)
Double Robust 4.1% (1.1, 7.1) -0.36 (0.09, 0.63) 1.91 (1.27, 2.90)
• 4% better adherence• 1.9 odds better viral suppression• $5.00/pill box: extremely cost-effective intervention• Should be standard-of-care
A single tablet regimen is associated with higher adherence and viral suppression than multiple tablet
regimens in homeless and marginally housed individuals.Bangsberg et al CROI 2010
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1 2 3 4 5 6
Month
Me
an
Ah
ere
nc
e
FDC EFV/TDF/FTC NNRTI PI RPI
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
'0-49' '50-<75' '75-<80' '80-<90' '90-100'
Adherence Category
Pro
po
rtio
n V
L<
50
FDC EFV/TDF/FTCF r-PI
Unannounced pill count adherence Proportion VL<400 c/ml
Outline
• Adherence goals• Simple stuff to improve adherence• RCT intervention summary• RCT intervention highlights • Cost effectiveness of ART adherence
interventions• Future directions in adherence interventions
RCT Adherence InterventionsMeta-analyses/Systematic reviews
• J Simoni et al JAIDS 2006 Dec 1;43 Suppl 1:S23-35
• Amico et al JAIDS 2006 41:285-297
• Simoni, Amico et al Curr HIV/AIDS Rep (2010) 7:44–51
95% Adherence at First Follow-upJ Simoni et al JAIDS 2006 Dec 1;43 Suppl 1:S23-35
Study Intervention Control OR (95% CI) (n/N) (n/N)
DiIorio 8/8 6/9 9.29 (3.15, 27.35)
Knobel 46/60 58/110 2.95 (2.32, 3.76)
Margolin 23/37 12/32 2.74 (1.03, 7.28)
Weber 21/31 12/27 2.42 (0.78, 7.52)
Safren-life 16/30 8/26 2.30 (1.42, 3.74)
Remien 30/86 18/95 2.30 (1.82, 2.90)
Rathbun 6/16 4/17 1.94 (1.16, 3.25)
Pradier 75/64 62/70 1.92 (1.56, 2.36)
Tuldra 37/40 35/65 1.76 (1.05, 2.95)
Murphy 14/17 11/14 1.27 (0.69, 2.35)
Andrade 14/32 12/32 1.25 (0.44, 3.53)
Rawlings 15/51 18/57 1.13 (0.88, 1.46)
Samet 33/53 40/65 0.96 (0.74, 1.24)
Goujard 86/101 73/85 0.94 (0.71, 1.25)
Jones 40/92 40/82 0.79 (0.43, 1.43)
Rigsby 4/15 4/12 0.75 (0.43, 1.33)
Safren-pager 1/34 1/36 0.62 (.02, 19.33)
Rotheram 15/19 12/13 0.30 (0.14, 0.67)
Overall 484/786 426/847 1.50 (1.16,1.94)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
OR=1.5 (1.16-1.94)
Study Intervention Control OR (95% CI) (n/N) (n/N)
Rathbun 16/16 12/17 13.48 (4.81, 37.79)
Smith 7/11 5/13 2.90 (1.64, 5.14)
Tuldra 22/28 17/26 2.03 (1.33, 3.07)
Knobel 39/60 60/110 1.55 (1.24, 1.94)
Pradier 79/123 65/121 1.51 (1.27, 1.81)
Goujard 49/77 37/62 1.21 (0.96, 1.54)
Rawlings 53/66 43/54 1.13 (0.88, 1.46)
Remien 37/86 39/95 1.09 (0.89, 1.33)
Samet 19/31 24/38 0.96 (0.69, 1.34)
Andrade 10/29 11/29 0.86 (0.60, 1.25)
Rigsby 3/15 3/12 0.84 (0.44, 1.58)
Margolin 11/25 11/20 0.64 (0.43, 0.97)
Weber 27/29 23/24 0.58 (0.25, 1.35)
Rotheram 4/9 2/3 0.52 (0.21, 1.29)
Overall 376/605 352/642 1.25 (.99, 1.59)0.10 1.00 10.00 100.000.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Undetectable VL Post-InterventionJ Simoni et al JAIDS 2006 Dec 1;43 Suppl 1:S23-35
OR 1.25 (.99-1.59)
Efficacy of Antiretroviral Therapy Adherence Interventions: A Research Synthesis of Trials, 1996 to 2004
Amico et al JAIDS 2006 41:285-297
Intervention effect stronger for studies that selected for incomplete adherence
Simoni and Amico Synthesis
• Interactive, open-ended, and multidisciplinary– pharmacist, case manager, physician, family/partner – education, behavioral skills, motivation/cognition
expectations, reminders
• Multiple sessions• Greatest effect in the least adherent • Doesn’t last much beyond the intervention• More recent interventions may be less likely to
find virologic benefit
Outline
• Adherence goals• Simple stuff to improve adherence• RCT intervention summary• RCT intervention highlights • Cost effectiveness of ART adherence
interventions• Future directions in adherence interventions
0-1 2-3 4-6 7-9 10-120-1 2-3 4-6 7-9 10-1280
85
90
95
100
ControlIntervention
Dailydose
Months
Mea
n (
SE
M)
wee
kly
adh
eren
ce (
%)
92.8%
88.9%
Interventions Prevent a Decline in AdherenceCognitive behavior intervention on adherence to ARV therapy
Weber et al Antiviral Therapy 2004:9:85
Couple-focused support to improve HIV medication adherence: a randomized controlled trial
Remien et al AIDS 2005:19:807-814
• Serodiscordant couple >6 months• 2 week MEMS adherence monitor screen
– Eligible if <80% adherence • Four 45-60 minutes sessions
– Structured discussion and education about adherence to identify barriers
– Problem solving to overcome barriers– Couple communication exercises to optimize partner
support• MEMS Adherence and VL over 6 months
Proportion Adherent at 3 Levels
Couple-focused support to improve HIV medication adherence: a randomized controlled trial
Remien et al AIDS 2005:19:807-814
ACTG 731: A Multi-site Randomized Controlled Trial of Weekly Nursing Telephone
Support to Improve ARV AdherenceReynolds et al JAIDS 2008
• Content:– Patient-centered—elicits patient perspective and
addresses patient’s biological, social and cultural realities
• Mode:– Fits clinical environment of care– Provides “safety feature” in context of home– Suitable to persons with lower levels of literacy– Takes advantage of training of nurses who are
widely available in different clinic settings
4 16 32 48 6495
96
97
98
99
100Control GroupIntervention Group
Figure 2: Mean (+/- SE) Adherence by Treatment Group
P= 0.023
Study Week
Per
cen
t se
lf-r
epo
rted
ad
her
ence
ACTG 731. Nurse-Delivered Telephone Intervention
A better overall treatment effect was observed in the treated (telephone group) (p = 0.023) in comparison with standard care Reynolds et al., JAIDS, 2008
Home Visits to Improve Adherence to Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy: A Randomized
Controlled TrialWilliams et al JAIDS 2006:42:314-321
• RCT community based home visits vs standard care– Paulo Freire: True learning occurs through
dialogue and participation among equals– 24 home visits over 12 months: identify
concerns, individuals, social factors– Outcome: MEMS adherence and HIV VL
Home Visits to Improve Adherence to Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Williams et al JAIDS 2006:42:314-321
Proportion MEMS Adherence >90%
No difference in VL or CD4 between groups (54 vs 52% ND)
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy For Improving Adherence and Depression
Safren et al Health Psychology in Press
• 2 Arm, cross-over design comparing 12 sessions of CBT-AD to a single session of adherence counseling
• Participants: 45 randomized, 42 completers with DSM-IV diagnosable depression
• CBT-AD resulted in improved adherence (MEMS) and depression at three months, and maintains were gained at 6 and 12 months.
MEMS outcomes, LECF
0
25
50
75
100
BASELINE T2
CBT ETAU
ITT ANCOVA, F(1,42) = 21.94, p< .0001, Effect size (Cohen d) = 1.0
Three-month (acute) outcome depicted above
Pattern of results similar ITT and completer analyses
Directly Assisted Antiretroviral Therapy
• Not effective for “all-comers” (Wohl CID 2006, Ford Lancet 2009)
• Effective in active drug users and methadone maintenance (Macalino AIDS 2007, Altice CID 2007, Lucas CID 2004)
• Does not last beyond intervention
• Exit strategy and relapse remain a challenge
Outline
• Adherence goals• Simple stuff to improve adherence• RCT intervention summary• RCT intervention highlights • Cost effectiveness of ART adherence
interventions• Future directions in adherence interventions
Adherence Interventions are Cost EffectiveGoldie et al AJM 2003
Outline
• Adherence goals• Simple stuff to improve adherence• RCT intervention summary• RCT intervention highlights • Cost effectiveness of ART adherence
interventions• Future directions in adherence interventions
Duration of MEMS Defined Treatment Interruption and Probability of NNRTI Resistance
Parienti and Bangsberg PLOS One 2008
+ ControlsO Cases Estimated 95% confidence interval
Longer interval of treatment discontinuation in days
Est
ima
ted
pro
babi
lity
of v
iral c
ontr
ol
Real-time Adherence MonitoringBangsberg and Deeks Annal Int Med 2010
Adherence Intervention Summary
• Goals of adherence are changing– >80% and no sustained interruptions– Preventing the decline in adherence
• Most effective interventions: educational, motivational, open-ended, interactive sessions to identify barriers and develop behavioral skills
• Intensive interventions for high risk patients• Real-time monitoring: reactive response to
proactive prevention of treatment resistant failure