학술논문

Agreement Between Measures of Adherence to Isoniazid Preventive Therapy Among People With HIV in Uganda
Document Type
article
Source
Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 9(10)
Subject
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences
Clinical Sciences
HIV/AIDS
Infectious Diseases
Clinical Research
Infection
Good Health and Well Being
PWH
adherence measures
isoniazid preventive therapy
Clinical sciences
Medical microbiology
Language
Abstract
BackgroundIsoniazid (INH) preventative therapy is recommended for people with HIV (PWH) in resource-constrained settings. Valid measures are needed to assess adherence. We aimed to examine agreement between measures overall and by level of social desirability.MethodsPWH with latent tuberculosis (TB) were recruited in Mbarara, Uganda. Past 30-day adherence was measured by the number of days with pill bottle openings using a medication event monitoring system (MEMS) and self-reported number of days pills taken. INH concentration (INH plus acetyl INH and their ratio) in hair samples was measured. We used Bland-Altman plots to examine agreement between adherence measures and calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) to determine if INH hair concentration predicted optimal MEMS-measured adherence (≥90%).ResultsA total of 301 participants enrolled; 92% were virologically suppressed, and adherence was high. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of pill bottle openings in 30 days was 28 (24-30) compared with 30 (28-30) via self-report. The median INH concentration (IQR) was 36.2 (17.2-62.4), and the INH:acetyl ratio was 2.43 (0.99-3.92). Agreement between self-reported and MEMS adherence was greater at more optimal adherence levels. INH:acetyl INH ratio was not predictive of optimal adherence according to MEMS (AUROC, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52-0.72) in a subset (n = 161).ConclusionsLower MEMS adherence levels compared with self-report suggest the need for objective adherence measures. Biologic measures have potential, although in this study INH concentration was not predictive of MEMS measured adherence. More data are needed to assess the accuracy of biologic measures.