Table 2.
Summarised adherence measures and HIV RNA viral load (VL) for participants who had baseline data and at least one follow-up visit.
| Ingestible sensor group | Usual care group | Treatment difference (95% CI) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of participants - N | ||||
| Baselinea | 54 | 58 | .. | .. |
| Week 4 | 53 | 56 | .. | .. |
| Week 8 | 51 | 56 | .. | .. |
| Week 12 | 46 | 52 | .. | .. |
| Week 16 | 46 | 52 | .. | .. |
| Week 20 | 43 | 51 | .. | .. |
| Week 24 | 44 | 50 | .. | .. |
| Week 28 | 43 | 53 | .. | .. |
| IS measured adherence - mean (SD) | ||||
| Week 4 | 0.871 (0.336) | .. | .. | .. |
| Week 8 | 0.871 (0.336) | .. | .. | .. |
| Week 12 | 0.832 (0.375) | .. | .. | .. |
| Week 16 | 0.923 (0.267) | .. | .. | .. |
| IPAM Scoreb(ARV concentration) - mean (SD) | ||||
| 0.817 (0.276) N = 44 (81.5%) |
0.798 (0.267) N = 42 (72.4%) |
0.018 (−0.098, 0.134) | 0.753 | |
| Self-reported adherence - mean (SD) | ||||
| Baselinea | 0.907 (0.145) | 0.874 (0.132) | 0.033 (−0.019, 0.087) | 0.211 |
| Week 4 | 0.911 (0.157) | 0.874 (0.152) | 0.037 (−0.024, 0.097) | 0.229 |
| Week 8 | 0.906 (0.170) | 0.916 (0.135) | −0.010 (−0.071, 0.050) | 0.738 |
| Week 12 | 0.883 (0.170) | 0.821 (0.249) | 0.062 (−0.026, 0.149) | 0.166 |
| Week 16 | 0.887 (0.175) | 0.917 (0.163) | −0.030 (−0.102, 0.041) | 0.401 |
| Week 20 | 0.907 (0.209) | 0.845 (0.232) | 0.062 (−0.030, 0.154) | 0.186 |
| Week 24 | 0.948 (0.088) | 0.873 (0.224) | 0.075 (0.004, 0.147) | 0.038∗ |
| Week 28 | 0.930 (0.118) | 0.901 (0.198) | 0.029 (−0.037, 0.096) | 0.384 |
| Log VL - mean (SD) | ||||
| Baselinea | 2.273 (1.158) | 2.061 (0.954) | 1.629d (0.650, 4.083) | 0.295 |
| Week 4 | 1.916 (0.793) | 1.906 (0.516) | 1.023 (0.562, 1.866) | 0.936 |
| Week 8 | 1.851 (0.680) | 1.916 (0.711) | 0.861 (0.459, 1.618) | 0.640 |
| Week 12 | 1.873 (0.653) | 1.937 (0.671) | 0.863 (0.465, 1.600) | 0.634 |
| Week 16 | 1.895 (0.691) | 1.988 (0.895) | 0.807 (0.385, 1.690) | 0.567 |
| Week 28 | 1.957 (0.816) | 2.230 (1.117) | 0.528 (0.209, 1.334) | 0.174 |
| VL Suppressionc- N (%) | ||||
| Baselinea | 35 (64.8%) | 46 (79.3%) | 0.481e (0.206, 1.120) | 0.133 |
| Week 4 | 46 (86.8%) | 44 (78.6%) | 1.792 (0.646, 4.968) | 0.379 |
| Week 8 | 41 (80.4%) | 46 (82.1%) | 0.891 (0.337, 2.357) | 1 |
| Week 12 | 41 (89.1%) | 42 (80.8%) | 1.952 (0.614, 6.206) | 0.386 |
| Week 16 | 40 (87.0%) | 44 (84.6%) | 1.212 (0.387, 3.797) | 0.967 |
| Week 28 | 36 (83.7%) | 36 (67.9%) | 2.427 (0.899, 6.562) | 0.123 |
∗ The differences between IS and UC groups were compared by Student's t test. P < 0.05 but above the Bonferroni corrected significance threshold.
a
Only included participants who completed baseline.
b
IPAM score is the integrated PK adherence score.
c
VL suppression is defined as ≤50 per copies/mL.
d
Geometric mean ratio of VL between IS and UC (all such values).
e
Odds ratio between IS and UC (all such values).