Kathy Petoumenos1. 1. National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, The University of New South Wales, Level 2, Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia. kpetoumenos@nchecr.unsw.edu.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To illustrate how human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) observational databases may be used to monitor trends in HIV treatment and HIV disease outcomes through data reported from the Australian HIV Observational Database (AHOD). METHODS: Time trends in the use of antiretroviral treatment, and changes in treatment strategies were calculated in patients recruited to AHOD from HIV specialist clinics including hospitals, sexual health clinics and general practices. These results were then compared to trends reported from other observational cohorts. RESULTS: By September 2001, 1961 patients were recruited to AHOD. Since entering AHOD, 3% of patients have been diagnosed with an AIDS defining illness, and 2% of patients have died, of which, 54% were non-HIV related deaths. The proportion of patients receiving antiretroviral therapy increased from 66% between January and June 1998 and 77% between July and September 2001. The most commonly received treatment regimen was triple therapy including a protease inhibitor (PI), ranging between 36% in January and June 1998 and 31% in July to September 2001. Triple therapy including a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) more than doubled to 32% between July and September 2001. The proportion of patients receiving either stavudine (d4T) or zidovudine (AZT) treatment regimens decreased from 92% between January and June 1998 to 76% between July and September 2001. Patients receiving ritonavir in combination with another PI increased, as did the proportion of patients interrupting therapy for more than 3 months. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest there have been changes in the way antiretroviral treatments have been used in Australia, and are consistent with the current literature. Furthermore, these findings demonstrate the usefulness of observational cohorts as a surveillance tool monitoring trends in treatment and disease progression. Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science B.V.
OBJECTIVES: To illustrate how human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) observational databases may be used to monitor trends in HIV treatment and HIV disease outcomes through data reported from the Australian HIV Observational Database (AHOD). METHODS: Time trends in the use of antiretroviral treatment, and changes in treatment strategies were calculated in patients recruited to AHOD from HIV specialist clinics including hospitals, sexual health clinics and general practices. These results were then compared to trends reported from other observational cohorts. RESULTS: By September 2001, 1961 patients were recruited to AHOD. Since entering AHOD, 3% of patients have been diagnosed with an AIDS defining illness, and 2% of patients have died, of which, 54% were non-HIV related deaths. The proportion of patients receiving antiretroviral therapy increased from 66% between January and June 1998 and 77% between July and September 2001. The most commonly received treatment regimen was triple therapy including a protease inhibitor (PI), ranging between 36% in January and June 1998 and 31% in July to September 2001. Triple therapy including a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) more than doubled to 32% between July and September 2001. The proportion of patients receiving either stavudine (d4T) or zidovudine (AZT) treatment regimens decreased from 92% between January and June 1998 to 76% between July and September 2001. Patients receiving ritonavir in combination with another PI increased, as did the proportion of patients interrupting therapy for more than 3 months. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest there have been changes in the way antiretroviral treatments have been used in Australia, and are consistent with the current literature. Furthermore, these findings demonstrate the usefulness of observational cohorts as a surveillance tool monitoring trends in treatment and disease progression. Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science B.V.
Authors: Jason Cheung; Rainer Puhr; Kathy Petoumenos; David A Cooper; Ian Woolley; Manoji Gunathilake; Nigel Raymond; Rick Varma; Catherine C O'Connor; David M Gracey Journal: Nephrology (Carlton) Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: B P Mulhall; S T Wright; N De La Mata; D Allen; K Brown; B Dickson; M Grotowski; E Jackson; K Petoumenos; R Foster; T Read; D Russell; D J Smith; D J Templeton; C K Fairley; M G Law Journal: HIV Med Date: 2016-03-28 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: Nicole L De La Mata; Mi-Young Ahn; Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy; Penh Sun Ly; Oon Tek Ng; Kinh Van Nguyen; Tuti Parwati Merati; Thuy Thanh Pham; Man Po Lee; Nicolas Durier; Matthew G Law Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Sadaf Marashi Pour; Ian Woolley; Peter Canavan; John Chuah; Darren B Russell; Matthew Law; Kathy Petoumenos Journal: Sex Health Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.706
Authors: Brian P Mulhall; Stephen Wright; Debbie Allen; Katherine Brown; Bridget Dickson; Miriam Grotowski; Eva Jackson; Kathy Petoumenos; Phillip Read; Timothy Read; Darren Russell; David J Smith; David J Templeton; Christopher K Fairley; Matthew G Law Journal: Sex Health Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.706
Authors: Jialun Zhou; N Kumarasamy; Rossana Ditangco; Adeeba Kamarulzaman; Christopher K C Lee; Patrick C K Li; Nicholas I Paton; Praphan Phanuphak; Sanjay Pujari; Asda Vibhagool; Wing-Wai Wong; Fujie Zhang; John Chuah; Kevin R Frost; David A Cooper; Matthew G Law Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Stephen T Wright; Matthew G Law; David A Cooper; Phillip Keen; Ann McDonald; Melanie Middleton; Ian Woolley; Mark Kelly; Kathy Petoumenos Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 5.396