| Literature DB >> 30063651 |
Jennifer Velloza1, Jared M Baeten1,2, Jessica Haberer3, Kenneth Ngure4,5, Elizabeth Irungu5, Nelly R Mugo6, Connie Celum1,2, Renee Heffron1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low adherence can undermine the efficacy of daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Mental health conditions, particularly depression, could be associated with low PrEP adherence, especially for women.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30063651 PMCID: PMC6295199 DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001821
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr ISSN: 1525-4135 Impact factor: 3.731
FIGURE 1.Hypothesized relationships between depression, PrEP adherence, and time-varying confounding variables during study follow-up. T0, enrollment; T1, quarterly follow-up visits; T2, final study visit. PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis.
Characteristics of the Study Sample at Enrollment (N = 1013 Unless Otherwise Indicated)
| HIV-Uninfected Women | HIV-Uninfected | |
|---|---|---|
| Age, yrs | 29 (24–35) | 30 (26–37) |
| Unmarried | 9 (2.7) | 32 (4.7) |
| Education, yrs | 8 (5–11) | 8 (7–12) |
| Any income reported | 217 (65.0) | 653 (96.2) |
| Relationship duration with study partner, yrs | 5.9 (1.9–11.6) | 2.4 (0.8–5.8) |
| Time known to be in an HIV serodiscordant relationship, yrs | 0.1 (0.1–0.6) | 0.1 (0.0–0.2) |
| No. of children with study partner | 1 (0–2) | 0 (0–1) |
| No. of more children desired | 1 (0–2) | 2 (1–3) |
| Timing of next pregnancy (N = 887 nonpregnant participants) | ||
| Currently trying to get pregnant | 23 (6.9) | 41 (6.0) |
| Not currently trying to get pregnant | 185 (55.4) | 514(75.7) |
| No. of sex acts with study partner | 4.5 (3.0–8.0) | 6.0 (3.0–12.0) |
| Any condomless sex with study partner | 198 (59.3) | 458 (67.5) |
| Any sex with outside partner(s) | 5 (1.5) | 79 (11.6) |
| STI symptoms | 20 (6.0) | 11 (1.6) |
| CD4 count (cells/μL) of partner living with HIV | 403 (221–595) | 451 (285–660) |
| Plasma HIV RNA (log10 copies/mL) of partner living with HIV | 4.8 (4.3–5.3) | 4.4 (3.5–4.9) |
| Probable depression | 39 (11.7) | 64 (9.4) |
| HIV-related stigma | 6.0 (4.0–8.0) | 8.0 (5.0–9.0) |
| Heavy alcohol use | 50 (15.0) | 152 (22.4) |
| Social support | 3.6 (3.2–3.9) | 3.7 (3.2–4.0) |
| Relationship satisfaction with study partner | 31.0 (27.0–34.0) | 32.0 (28.0–35.0) |
| Happiness in relationship (N = 1012) | ||
| Happy | 292 (87.4) | 621 (91.6) |
| Unhappy | 42 (12.6) | 57 (8.4) |
| Reported abuse | 1 (0.3) | 2 (0.3) |
Data are presented as number (%) for categorical variables and median (IQR) for continuous variables.
Cognitive, behavioral disengagement, and somatic depressive symptoms were assessed with a Likert response scale ranging from 1 (“Not at all”) to 4 (“Extremely”). A mean score >1.75 was indicative of “probable depression.”
Happiness in the relationship was assessed with a single item asking participants to rate the degree of happiness in their partnership. Responses of “happy,” “very happy,” “extremely happy,” and “perfect” were coded as “Happy”; responses of “a little unhappy,” “fairly unhappy,” and “extremely unhappy” were coded as “Unhappy.”
STI, sexually transmitted infection.
Associations Between Participant Characteristics and Probable Depression During Study Follow-up (n = 1013)
| Frequency of Visits | Factors Associated With Probable Depression | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Probable | No Probable | Univariable OR | Multivariable OR | |||
| Demographic characteristics | ||||||
| Female | 219 (50.8) | 2770 (33.0) | 2.41 (1.61 to 3.61) | <0.001 | 2.16 (1.35 to 3.43) | 0.001 |
| Age, yrs | 30 (25–35) | 30 (25–35) | 1.00 (0.97 to 1.02) | 0.84 | ||
| Unmarried | 31 (7.2) | 291 (3.5) | 2.12 (0.92 to 4.90) | 0.08 | 2.77 (1.33 to 5.77) | 0.01 |
| Education, yrs | 9 (7–12) | 8 (6–12) | 1.02 (0.97 to 1.08) | 0.42 | ||
| Any income reported | 335 (77.7) | 7256 (86.5) | 0.56 (0.33 to 0.94) | 0.03 | 0.84 (0.48 to 1.47) | 0.54 |
| Couple characteristics | ||||||
| Relationship duration with study partner, yrs | 3.4 (0.7–8.2) | 3.5(1.1–8.1) | 1.00 (0.97 to 1.03) | 0.87 | ||
| Time known to be in an HIV serodiscordant relationship, yrs | 0.1 (0.0–0.2) | 0.1 (0.1–0.3) | 1.04 (0.80 to 1.36) | 0.77 | ||
| No. of children with study partner | 0 (0–1) | 0 (0–2) | 1.03 (0.88 to 1.22) | 0.69 | ||
| No. of more children desired | 1 (0–2) | 1 (0–2) | 0.94 (0.83 to 1.05) | 0.28 | ||
| Currently pregnant or trying to become pregnant | 71 (18.2) | 1320 (19.4) | 0.86 (0.61 to 1.22) | 0.40 | ||
| Currently in relationship with study partner at this visit | 369 (85.6) | 7329 (87.5) | 0.91 (0.56 to 1.48) | 0.70 | ||
| Sexual behavior since previous visit | ||||||
| No. of sex acts with study partner | 3 (1–8) | 4 (1–8) | 0.98 (0.96 to 1.01) | 0.19 | ||
| Any condomless sex with study partner | 152 (35.9) | 2547 (30.7) | 1.34 (1.02 to 1.77) | 0.04 | 1.33 (1.01 to 1.77) | 0.04 |
| Any sex with outside partner(s) | 43 (10.0) | 988 (11.8) | 0.95 (0.62 to 1.46) | 0.82 | ||
| STI symptoms | 25 (5.8) | 228 (2.7) | 1.55 (0.74 to 3.24) | 0.24 | ||
| HIV-related characteristics | ||||||
| CD4 count (cells/μL) of partner living with HIV | 471 (293–611) | 511 (344–712) | 1.00 (0.99 to 1.00) | 0.03 | 1.00 (0.99 to 1.00) | 0.54 |
| Plasma HIV RNA (log10 copies/mL) of partner living with HIV | 4.1 (1.6–4.8) | 2.2 (1.5–4.4) | 1.28 (1.15 to 1.42) | <0.001 | 1.16 (1.04 to 1.31) | 0.01 |
| Partner living with HIV on ART at this visit | 256(61.1) | 5975 (73.9) | 0.56 (0.40 to 0.78) | <0.001 | 0.74 (0.51 to 1.07) | 0.11 |
| Psychosocial and behavioral characteristics | ||||||
| HIV-related stigma | 8.0 (6.0–10.0) | 7.0 (4.0–8.0) | 1.13 (1.06 to 1.20) | <0.001 | 1.11 (1.04 to 1.19) | 0.01 |
| Heavy alcohol use | 125 (29.0) | 1465 (17.5) | 1.66 (1.10 to 2.51) | 0.02 | 1.83 (1.18 to 2.82) | 0.01 |
| Social support | 3.5 (2.8–4.0) | 3.8 (3.4–4.0) | 0.48 (0.36 to 0.64) | <0.001 | 0.72 (0.52 to 1.00) | 0.05 |
| Relationship satisfaction with study partner | 27.0(21.0–31.0) | 32.0 (28.0–35.0) | 0.89 (0.87 to 0.91) | <0.001 | 0.91 (0.89 to 0.94) | <0.001 |
| Happy in relationship with study partner | 328 (76.6) | 7596 (90.6) | 0.37 (0.25 to 0.56) | <0.001 | 0.70 (0.45 to 1.10) | 0.12 |
| Reported abuse | 11 (2.6) | 39 (0.5) | 4.31 (2.16 to 8.59) | <0.001 | 2.73 (1.48 to 5.02) | 0.01 |
Data are n/N (%) or median (IQR). The number of data points assessed is the total number of visits with each characteristic during study follow-up, stratified by probable depression.
Cognitive, behavioral disengagement, and somatic depressive symptoms were assessed with a Likert response scale ranging from 1 (“Not at all”) to 4 (“Extremely”). A mean score .1.75 was indicative of “probable depression.”
Multivariable models adjusted for study site and all other factors associated with probable depression in the univariable models, as determined by P-value ≤0.10.
Happiness in the relationship was assessed with a single item. Responses of “happy,” “very happy,” “extremely happy,” and “perfect” were coded as “Happy”; responses of “a little unhappy,” “fairly unhappy,” and “extremely unhappy” were coded as “Unhappy.”
OR, odds ratio; STI, sexually transmitted infection.
Associations Between Depression and Low PrEP Adherence* During Study Follow-up (n = 903 Participants)
| Probable depression | 39 (41.1) | 1.46 (1.05 to 2.03) | 0.02 | 1.77 (1.14 to 2.77) | 0.01 | 1.53 (1.05 to 2.23) | 0.03 |
| No probable depression | 347 (25.9) | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF |
| HSCL-D mean score | 1.12 (1.03–1.28) | 1.21 (0.82 to 1.80) | 0.33 | 1.80(1.03 to 3.14) | 0.03 | — | — |
| Probable depression | 29 (35.8) | 1.16 (0.75 to 1.81) | 0.49 | 1.18 (0.73 to 1.91) | 0.50 | 1.28 (0.78 to 2.12) | 0.32 |
| No probable depression | 861 (30.9) | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF |
| HSCL-D mean score | 1.11 (1.01–1.23) | 1.05 (0.87 to 1.27) | 0.63 | 1.05 (0.85 to 1.30) | 0.65 | — | — |
Participants were considered to have low adherence if they opened their pill bottles ,80% of the expected days between study visits, based on MEMS caps data.
Data are n/N (%) or median (IQR).
GEE models adjusted for study site, age, stigma, social support, fertility intentions, and condomless sex with their study partner since the previous visit, which were selected a priori, as well as relationship satisfaction with study partner, which resulted in a >10% change in the unadjusted RR in models for both men and women.
Weighted marginal structural model is adjusted for marital status, age, heavy alcohol use, relationship satisfaction, plasma HIV RNA concentration in the partner living with HIV, and depression history. We did not calculate the effect of mean HSCL-D score on PrEP adherence using marginal structural models because inverse probability weights generally perform poorly with continuous exposure variables.
Defined as HSCL-D mean score >1.75.
Defined as continuous HSCL-D score (range 0–4).
MSM, marginal structural models; RR, risk ratio.