Pattern of and reasons for antiretroviral therapy regimen change among adult HIV/AIDS patients at regional hospital in Eastern Ethiopia: A 10-year retrospective study

Abstract

Objectives: Despite the successes of treatment with antiretroviral therapy in reducing morbidity and mortality among HIV-infected patients, long-term sustainability of the initial regimen has become challenging. Therefore, this study is aimed to address pattern of and reasons for change of antiretroviral therapy regimens among HIV/AIDS patients at Jugel Hospital, Eastern Ethiopia. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted to review medical records of 220 patients who had been on treatment and experienced regimen change at least once from September 2006 to August 2016. Structured data abstraction format was customized from World Health Organization guideline. Data were entered in Epi-data version 3.1, and exported to and analyzed with Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20. Following descriptive statistics, binary logistic regression was run to determine the association between selected variables and second-time regimen change. Results: The mean age of patients was 37.6 (±8.9) years and 62.3% of them were female. Majority of the patients were presented to the hospital with World Health Organization clinical stage III (59.1%) and CD4 count below 200 cells/mm3 (68.6%). The mean duration of stay on initial regimen was found to be 3.26 (±1.92) years. The average number of initial regimen changes per year was 22 (±11.28). In two-thirds (66.36%) of the patients, their initial regimen was changed to tenofovir disproxil fumarate–based alternatives. The most-frequent reason for initial regimen change was toxicity (32.3%). Among those who experienced the regimen change for the first time, the prevalence of second-time regimen change was found to be 18.18%. Patients who had been taking tuberculosis treatment along with antiretroviral therapy were more likely to get their regimen changed for the second-time compared to those who were not infected with tuberculosis (adjusted odds ratio: 3.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.87–6.47). Besides, patients who were on zidovudine-based (adjusted odds ratio: 0.26; 95% confidence interval: 0.33–0.47) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate–based regimens (adjusted odds ratio: 0.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.01–0.12) were less likely to get their regimen changed for the second-time compared to those who were on stavudine-based regimens. Conclusion: The majority of the patients had their treatment regimen changed because of drug-related toxicities, treatment failure, and comorbid conditions. Some regimen changes might be attributable to failure of either hospital supply system or patient-related factors which would have been prevented considering limited number of treatment options. There must be consideration of risks and benefits prior to changing a particular regimen.