Factors Associated With the Frequency of Monitoring of Liver Enzymes, Renal Function and Lipid Laboratory Markers Among Individuals Initiating Combination Antiretroviral Therapy: A Cohort Study

Background As the average age of the HIV-positive population increases, there is increasing need to monitor patients for the development of comorbidities as well as for drug toxicities. Methods We examined factors associated with the frequency of measurement of liver enzymes, renal function tests, and lipid levels among participants of the Canadian Observational Cohort (CANOC) collaboration which follows people who initiated HIV antiretroviral therapy in 2000 or later. We used zero-inflated negative binomial regression models to examine the associations of demographic and clinical characteristics with the rates of measurement during follow-up. Generalized estimating equations with a logit link were used to examine factors associated with gaps of 12 months or more between measurements. Results Electronic laboratory data were available for 3940 of 7718 CANOC participants. The median duration of electronic follow-up was 3.5 years. The median (interquartile) rates of tests per year were 2.76 (1.60, 3.73), 2.55 (1.44, 3.38) and 1.42 (0.50, 2.52) for liver, renal and lipid parameters, respectively. In multivariable zero-inflated negative binomial regression models, individuals infected through injection drug use (IDU) were significantly less likely to have any measurements. Among participants with at least one measurement, rates of measurement of liver, renal and lipid tests were significantly lower for younger individuals and Aboriginal Peoples. Hepatitis C co-infected individuals with a history of IDU had lower rates of measurement and were at greater risk of having 12 month gaps between measurements. Conclusions Hepatitis C co-infected participants infected through IDU were at increased risk of gaps in testing, despite publicly funded health care and increased risk of comorbid conditions. This should be taken into consideration in analyses examining factors associated with outcomes based on laboratory parameters

Comparison of atazanavir/ritonavir and darunavir/ritonavir based antiretroviral therapy for antiretroviral naïve patients

Background: Atazanavir/ritonavir and darunavir/ritonavir are common protease inhibitor-based regimens for treating patients with HIV. Studies comparing these drugs in clinical practice are lacking. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of antiretroviral naïve participants in the Canadian Observational Cohort (CANOC) collaboration initiating atazanavir/ritonavir- or darunavir/ritonavir-based treatment. We used separate Fine and Gray competing risk regression models to compare times to regimen failure (composite of virologic failure or discontinuation for any reason). Additional endpoints included virologic failure, discontinuation due to virologic failure, discontinuation for other reasons, and virologic suppression. Results: We studied 222 patients treated with darunavir/ritonavir and 1791 patients treated with atazanavir/ritonavir. Following multivariable adjustment, there was no difference between darunavir/ritonavir and atazanavir-ritonavir in the risk of regimen failure (adjusted hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.03) Darunavir/ritonavir-treated patients were at lower risk of virologic failure relative to atazanavir/ritonavir treated patients (aHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.91), findings driven largely by high rates of virologic failure among atazanavir/ritonavir-treated patients in the province of British Columbia. Of 108 discontinuations due to virologic failure, all occurred in patients starting atazanavir/ritonavir. There was no difference between regimens in time to discontinuation for reasons other than virologic failure (aHR 0.93; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33) or virologic suppression (aHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.21). Conclusions: The risk of regimen failure was similar between patients treated with darunavir/ritonavir and atazanavir/ritonavir. Although darunavir/ritonavir was associated with a lower risk of virologic failure relative to atazanavir/ritonavir, this difference varied substantially by Canadian province and likely reflects regional variation in prescribing practices and patient characteristics.Other UBCNon UBCReviewedFacult