Objectives:We quantified concomitant medication polypharmacy, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions, adverse effects and adherence in Australian adults on effective antiretroviral therapy.Design:Cross-sectional.Methods:Patients recruited into a nationwide cohort and assessed for prevalence and type of concomitant medication (including polypharmacy, defined as ≥5 concomitant medications), pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interactions, potential concomitant medication adverse effects and concomitant medication adherence. Factors associated with concomitant medication polypharmacy and with imperfect adherence were identified using multivariable logistic regression.Results:Of 522 participants, 392 (75%) took a concomitant medication (mostly cardiovascular, nonprescription or antidepressant). Overall, 280 participants (54%) had polypharmacy of concomitant medications and/or a drug interaction or contraindication. Polypharmacy was present in 122 (23%) and independently associated with clinical trial participation, renal impairment, major comorbidity, hospital/general practice-based HIV care (versus sexual health clinic) and benzodiazepine use. Seventeen participants (3%) took at least one concomitant medication contraindicated with their antiretroviral therapy, and 237 (45%) had at least one pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic interaction. Concomitant medication use was significantly associated with sleep disturbance and myalgia, and polypharmacy of concomitant medications with diarrhoea, fatigue, myalgia and peripheral neuropathy. Sixty participants (12%) reported imperfect concomitant medication adherence, independently associated with requiring financial support, foregoing necessities for financial reasons, good/very good self-reported general health and at least 1 bed day for illness in the previous 12 months.Conclusion:In a resource-rich setting with universal healthcare access, the majority of this sample took a concomitant medication. Over half had at least one of concomitant medication polypharmacy, pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interaction. Concomitant medication use was associated with several adverse clinical outcomes.
BackgroundDeadly Liver Mob (DLM) is a peer-driven, incentivised health promotion program aimed at increasing understanding of hepatitis C, promoting harm reduction in relation to injecting drug use, and linking participants to screening for hepatitis C, other blood borne viruses and sexually transmissible infections among Aboriginal people in Western Sydney, NSW. This paper presents the evaluation of a pilot study examining the acceptability of the program as a first step of a scalability assessment.MethodsDeadly Liver Mob operated in co-located needle and syringe programs and sexual health clinics in two sites: (Site 1: two and a half years for 2 days/week; Site 2: 1 year for 1 day per week). Comparisons were made of the proportion of Aboriginal clients (Site 1) and occasions of service provided to Aboriginal clients (Site 2) in the 12 months prior and post-introduction of DLM. Interviews were conducted with 13 staff involved in delivery of DLM and with 19 clients.ResultsA total of 655 and 55 Aboriginal clients, respectively, attended Site 1 and Site 2 for health education. The proportion of Aboriginal clients attending both sites was significantly higher during the DLM compared with prior to its implementation. Of those attending for health education, 79 and 73%, respectively, attended screening following education. DLM clients strongly endorsed the program. Some staff were concerned about workforce capacity to effectively engage Aboriginal clients with multiple and complex needs, managing the differing aims of the participating services involved, and about offering of incentives for attendance at health services.ConclusionWhile acceptability was high among staff and clients and preliminary results show high engagement with Aboriginal communities, this evaluation of a pilot program raises some issues to consider in scale up of DLM to other sites. The initiation of additional DLM sites should address issues of alignment with governing strategies and workforce capacity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.