Skip to main content

HIV-Positive Drinkers Choose Alcohol Over ART


June 11, 2012 (Miami Beach, Florida) — Half of HIV-positive drinkers receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) intentionally skipped or stopped taking their medications when they consumed alcohol, in the mistaken belief that combining ART drugs and alcohol is somehow toxic, according to a prospective cohort study.
The study, which monitored patients' beliefs about mixing alcohol and ART medicines, was presented here at the 7th International Conference on HIV Treatment and Prevention Adherence.
"It's really a bad idea for people to stop taking their HIV medications, but we found that there was a substantial number of people with HIV who are choosing to stop taking their medication when they are drinking," lead author Seth Kalichman, PhD, from the University of Connecticut, in Storrs, told Medscape Medical News.
"There are many who hold the belief, not only those with HIV infection but those with other chronic diseases, that if they mix their medications with alcohol it creates a toxic poison that is harmful.... However, there is no evidence that mixing alcohol [with antiretroviral medications] increases the harm of the alcohol itself," Dr. Kalichman said.
"Of course, if you have HIV infection and liver disease, that is an entirely different scenario. You should definitely not drink alcohol if you have liver disease," he said.
Study Design and Results
In their study, Dr. Kalichman and his group enrolled 178 people with HIV who consume alcohol and receive ART, and monitored them for 12 months to see how many of them held the false belief and whether those who did were less adherent to their medications than those who did not.
Patients kept an electronic diary on their cell phone, and received daily text messages reminding them to report whether they had consumed alcohol and what and how much they drank.
Adherence to ART was assessed using monthly unannounced pill counts (patients were contacted and asked to count their pills), self-report, and chart abstracted HIV viral load.
The study found that 90 patients (51%) skipped or stopped taking their ART when drinking. The most common reason given for not taking ART when drinking was the belief that to do so would be dangerous.
Patients who believed that this combination was dangerous were 3 times as likely to be treatment nonadherent as those who did not hold the belief; this difference was significant (P < .01).
Those who skipped doses or stopped ART when drinking were also less likely to be virally suppressed, and more likely to have CD4 cell counts below 200 cells/mm3, Dr. Kalichman reported.
The belief about toxic interaction predicted nonadherence to a greater degree than alcohol use itself.
Message to Patients: Don't Skip ART Doses
Dr. Kalichman noted that misinformed beliefs can be easily corrected. "Doctors can tell their patients that it is not a good idea to drink if you are taking medications because you can miss doses, but don't skip your medications just because you are drinking. When it comes to these antiretroviral medications, the harm of missing the medications is greater than the harm of drinking with medications," Dr. Kalichman said.
Medscape Medical News asked Robert Gross, MD, associate professor of medicine, biostatistics and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, for his opinion of the study. Dr. Gross's research is in HIV, health promotion, disease prevention, and behavioral change.
"This perception that it is dangerous to take medications and alcohol probably stems from a time in the 1950s and 1960s when combining the 2, particularly barbiturates, would be fatal," said Dr. Gross, who was not part of the study.
"Having heard that you shouldn't take pills and alcohol at the same time, people have perhaps overgeneralized the idea of not taking antiretroviral therapy at a time when they are drinking alcohol," he said.
"Dr. Kalichman suggested that this mistaken belief might be one of the barriers to taking antiretroviral therapy that is most easily dealt with, and I agree with his conclusion," Dr. Gross said.
He added that clinicians could bring up the topic with their patients to make sure they understand that it is best to continue even if they drink.
"Try to probe whether your patients have these misperceptions," Dr. Gross said. "I find one of the things that is challenging for a provider is to conceptualize the way a patient is thinking about their disease or their treatment.... The bottom line is we want to get them to take medications because we know it will lead to treatment success. The goal should be to meet the patient where they are with their beliefs and try to correct the ones that are correctable."
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kalichman and Dr. Gross have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...