Asking about adherence - from flipping the coin to strong evidence.

In the era of antiretroviral therapy (ART) as prevention for transmission of HIV as well as treatment for HIV-positive individuals irrespective of CD4 cell counts, the importance of adherence has grown. Although adherence is not the only determinant of treatment success, it is one of the only modifiable risk factors. Treatment failure reduces future treatment options and therefore long-term clinical success as well as increases the possibility of developing drug resistant mutations. Drug-resistant strains of HIV can then be transmitted to uninfected or drug-naïve individuals limiting their future treatment options, making adherence an important public-health topic, especially in resource-limited settings. Adherence should be monitored as a part of routine clinical care; however, no gold standard for assessment of adherence exists. For use in daily clinical practice, self-report is the most likely candidate for widespread use due to its many advantages over other measurement methods, such as low cost and ease of administration. Asking individuals about their adherence behaviour has been shown to yield valid and predictive data - well beyond the mere flip of a coin. However, there is still work to be done. This article reviews the literature and evidence on self-reported adherence, identifies gaps in adherence research, and makes recommendations for clinicians on how to best utilise self-reported adherence data to support patients in daily clinical practice

Investigating barriers in HIV-testing oncology patients. The IBITOP study: phase I.

BACKGROUND: Since the advent of combined antiretroviral therapy (ART), the incidence of non-AIDS-defining cancers (non-ADCs) among HIV-positive patients is rising. We previously described HIV testing rates of <5% in our oncology centre, against a local HIV prevalence of 0.4% (1). We have since worked with the Service of Oncology to identify, how HIV testing can be optimized, we have conducted a study on investigating barriers in HIV-testing oncology patients (IBITOP) among treating oncologists and their patients. METHODS: After an initial two-month pilot study to examine feasibility (2), we conducted the first phase of the IBITOP study between 1st July and 31st October 2013. Patients of unknown HIV status, newly diagnosed with solid-organ non-AIDS-defining cancer, and treated at Lausanne University Hospital were invited to participate. Patients were offered HIV testing as a part of their initial oncology work-up. Oncologist testing proposals and patient acceptance were the primary endpoints. RESULTS: Of 235 patients with a new oncology diagnosis, 10 were excluded (7 with ADCs and 3 of known HIV-positive status). Mean age was 62 years; 48% were men and 71% were Swiss. Of 225 patients, 75 (33%) were offered HIV testing. Of these, 56 (75%) accepted, of whom 52 (93%) were tested. A further ten patients were tested (without documentation of being offered a test), which gave a total testing rate of 28% (62/225). Among the 19 patients who declined testing, reasons cited included self-perceived absence of HIV risk, previous testing and palliative care. Of the 140 patients not offered HIV testing and not tested, reasons were documented for 35 (25%), the most common being previous testing and follow-up elsewhere. None of the 62 patients HIV tested had a reactive test. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, one third of patients seen were offered testing and the HIV testing rate was fivefold higher than that of previously observed in this service. Most patients accepted testing when offered. As HIV-positive status impacts on the medical management of cancer patients, we recommend that HIV screening should be performed in settings, where HIV prevalence is >0.1%. Phase II of the IBITOP study is now underway to explore barriers to HIV screening among oncologists and patients following the updated national HIV testing guidelines which recommend testing in non-ADC patients undergoing chemotherapy

HIV-1 superinfection with a triple-class drug-resistant strain in a patient successfully controlled with antiretroviral treatment.

We report a case of HIV-1 superinfection (HSI) with a clade B, triple-class resistant virus in a patient successfully controlling viremia with continuous combination antiretroviral therapy started 8 years earlier during primary HIV infection. The course of HIV infection prior to HSI was monitored in both the source partner and recipient (8 and 11 years, respectively) and 4 years following HSI. This case report demonstrates re-infection with HIV-1 despite effective combination antiretroviral therapy

Comparison of HIV-infected patients' characteristics, healthcare resources use and cost between native and migrant patients

Objectives:: To assess whether patients' characteristics and healthcare resources consumption and costs were different between native and migrant populations in Switzerland. Methods:: All adult patients followed-up in the Swiss HIV-cohort study in our institution during 2000-2003 were considered. Patients' characteristics were retrieved from the cohort database. Hospital and outpatient resource use were extracted from individual charts and valued with 2002 tariffs. Results:: The 66 migrants were younger (29 ± 8years versus 37±11, p < 0.001), less often of male gender (38 % versus 70 %, p < 0.001), predominantly infected via heterosexual contact (87 % versus 52 %, p < 0.01), with lower mean CD4 level at enrolment (326 ± 235 versus 437± 305, p = 0.002) than their 200 native counterparts. Migrants had fewer hospitalizations, more frequent outpatient visits, laboratory tests, and lower total cost of care per year of follow-up (€ 2′215 ± 4′206 versus 4′155 ± 12′304, p = 0.037). Resource use and costs were significantly higher in people with < 200 CD4 cell counts in both groups. Conclusions:: Migrant population had more advanced disease, more outpatient visits but less hospitalizations, resulting in lower costs of care when compared with native populatio

Patients with AIDS-defining cancers are not universally screened for HIV: a 10-year retrospective analysis of HIV-testing practices in a Swiss university hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), invasive cervical carcinoma (ICC) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have been listed as AIDS-defining cancers (ADCs) by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 1993. Despite this, HIV screening is not universally mentioned in ADC treatment guidelines. We examined screening practices at a tertiary centre serving a population where HIV seroprevalence is 0.4%. METHODS: Patients with KS, ICC, NHL and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), treated at Lausanne University Hospital between January 2002 and July 2012, were studied retrospectively. HIV testing was considered part of the oncology work-up if performed between 90 days before and 90 days after the cancer diagnosis date. RESULTS: A total of 880 patients were examined: 10 with KS, 58 with ICC, 672 with NHL and 140 with HL. HIV testing rates were 100, 11, 60 and 59%, and HIV seroprevalence was 60, 1.7, 3.4 and 5%, respectively. Thirty-seven patients (4.2%) were HIV-positive, of whom eight (22%) were diagnosed at oncology work-up. All newly diagnosed patients had CD4 counts &lt; 200 cells/μL and six (75%) had presented to a physician 12-236 weeks previously with conditions warranting HIV testing. CONCLUSIONS: In our institution, only patients with KS were universally screened. Screening rates for other cancers ranged from 11 to 60%. HIV seroprevalence was at least fourfold higher than the population average. As HIV-positive status impacts on cancer patient medical management, HIV screening should be included in oncology guidelines. Further, we recommend that opt-out screening should be adopted in all patients with ADCs and HL

Morbidity and Aging in HIV-Infected Persons: The Swiss HIV Cohort Study

Comorbid diseases, such as myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes mellitus, bone fractures without adequate trauma, osteoporosis, and non-AIDS-defining malignancies, among HIV-infected individuals are age-related. Consequently, multimorbidity will become an important issue in care of the aging HIV-infected populatio

HIV-1 superinfection with a triple-class drug-resistant strain in a patient successfully controlled with antiretroviral treatment.

We report a case of HIV-1 superinfection (HSI) with a clade B, triple-class resistant virus in a patient successfully controlling viremia with continuous combination antiretroviral therapy started 8 years earlier during primary HIV infection. The course of HIV infection prior to HSI was monitored in both the source partner and recipient (8 and 11 years, respectively) and 4 years following HSI. This case report demonstrates re-infection with HIV-1 despite effective combination antiretroviral therapy

Patients' understanding of blood tests and attitudes to HIV screening in the emergency department of a Swiss teaching hospital: a cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: In Switzerland, patients may undergo "blood tests" without being informed what these are screening for. Inadequate doctor-patient communication may result in patient misunderstanding. We examined what patients in the emergency department (ED) believed they had been screened for and explored their attitudes to routine (non-targeted) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening. METHODS: Between 1st October 2012 and 28th February 2013, a questionnaire-based survey was conducted among patients aged 16-70 years old presenting to the ED of Lausanne University Hospital. Patients were asked: (1) if they believed they had been screened for HIV; (2) if they agreed in principle to routine HIV screening and (3) if they agreed to be HIV tested during their current ED visit. RESULTS: Of 466 eligible patients, 411 (88%) agreed to participate. Mean age was 46 ± 16 years; 192 patients (47%) were women; 366 (89%) were Swiss or European; 113 (27%) believed they had been screened for HIV, the proportion increasing with age (p ≤0.01), 297 (72%) agreed in principle with routine HIV testing in the ED, and 138 patients (34%) agreed to be HIV tested during their current ED visit. CONCLUSION: In this ED population, 27% believed incorrectly they had been screened for HIV. Over 70% agreed in principle with routine HIV testing and 34% agreed to be tested during their current visit. These results demonstrate willingness among patients concerning routine HIV testing in the ED and highlight a need for improved doctor-patient communication about what a blood test specifically screens for