Nathan Ford1, Jean B Nachega2, Mark E Engel3, Edward J Mills4. 1. Médecins Sans Frontières, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa. Electronic address: Nathan.ford@joburg.msf.org. 2. Department of Medicine and Centre for Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa; Department of International Health and Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa. 4. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Directly observed therapy has been recommended to improve adherence for patients with HIV infection who are on highly active antiretroviral therapy, but the benefit and cost-effectiveness of this approach has not been established conclusively. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of directly observed versus self-administered antiretroviral treatment. METHODS: We did duplicate searches of databases (from inception to July 27, 2009), searchable websites of major HIV conferences (up to July, 2009), and lay publications and websites (March-July, 2009) to identify randomised trials assessing directly observed therapy to promote adherence to antiretroviral therapy in adults. Our primary outcome was virological suppression at study completion. We calculated relative risks (95% CIs), and pooled estimates using a random-effects method. FINDINGS: 12 studies met our inclusion criteria; four of these were done in groups that were judged to be at high risk of poor adherence (drug users and homeless people). Ten studies reported on the primary outcome (n=1862 participants); we calculated a pooled relative risk of 1.04 (95% CI 0.91-1.20, p=0.55), and noted moderate heterogeneity between the studies (I(2)= 53.8%, 95% CI 0-75.7, p=0.0247) for directly observed versus self-administered treatment. INTERPRETATION: Directly observed antiretroviral therapy seems to offer no benefit over self-administered treatment, which calls into question the use of such an approach to support adherence in the general patient population. FUNDING: None. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Directly observed therapy has been recommended to improve adherence for patients with HIV infection who are on highly active antiretroviral therapy, but the benefit and cost-effectiveness of this approach has not been established conclusively. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of directly observed versus self-administered antiretroviral treatment. METHODS: We did duplicate searches of databases (from inception to July 27, 2009), searchable websites of major HIV conferences (up to July, 2009), and lay publications and websites (March-July, 2009) to identify randomised trials assessing directly observed therapy to promote adherence to antiretroviral therapy in adults. Our primary outcome was virological suppression at study completion. We calculated relative risks (95% CIs), and pooled estimates using a random-effects method. FINDINGS: 12 studies met our inclusion criteria; four of these were done in groups that were judged to be at high risk of poor adherence (drug users and homeless people). Ten studies reported on the primary outcome (n=1862 participants); we calculated a pooled relative risk of 1.04 (95% CI 0.91-1.20, p=0.55), and noted moderate heterogeneity between the studies (I(2)= 53.8%, 95% CI 0-75.7, p=0.0247) for directly observed versus self-administered treatment. INTERPRETATION: Directly observed antiretroviral therapy seems to offer no benefit over self-administered treatment, which calls into question the use of such an approach to support adherence in the general patient population. FUNDING: None. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: James C M Brust; Alain H Litwin; Karina M Berg; Xuan Li; Moonseong Heo; Julia H Arnsten Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Edwin Wouters; Wim Van Damme; Dingie van Rensburg; Caroline Masquillier; Herman Meulemans Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-07-09 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jaimie P Meyer; Javier Cepeda; Johnny Wu; Robert L Trestman; Frederick L Altice; Sandra A Springer Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Sheri D Weiser; Abigail M Hatcher; Lee L Hufstedler; Elly Weke; Shari L Dworkin; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Rachel L Burger; Stephen Kodish; Nils Grede; Lisa M Butler; Craig R Cohen Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2017-02
Authors: Shrinidhi Subramaniam; Carol-Ann Getty; August F Holtyn; Andrew Rodewald; Brian Katz; Brantley P Jarvis; Jeannie-Marie S Leoutsakos; Michael Fingerhood; Kenneth Silverman Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2019-11
Authors: Larry W Chang; David Serwadda; Thomas C Quinn; Maria J Wawer; Ronald H Gray; Steven J Reynolds Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 25.071