OBJECTIVE: To audit the use of antiretroviral (ARV) treatment in a large treatment clinic in the UK against the British HIV Association (BHIVA) ARV treatment guidelines. METHODS: All patients under follow-up between 1st January 2000 and 1st January 2001 were included. The most recent CD4 count and HIV RNA level prior to 1st January 2001, and the nadir CD4 count and peak HIV RNA level over follow-up, were used to identify which patients should be receiving HAART according to the guidelines. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and sixty-four patients were included in the analysis (63.8% homosexual, 29.0% heterosexual risk; 72.9% white; 79.2% male). Almost half of patients had ever had a CD4 count below 200 cells/ micro L and over 80% had previously had a viral load above 4 log10 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL. Under 2000 BHIVA guidelines, treatment would be recommended in 77.4% patients. Overall, 819 patients were receiving ARV therapy. Two hundred and eighty-five patients were not receiving treatment when guidelines suggest they should (including 33 patients who were receiving regimens not recommended in the guidelines). These patients were younger, less likely to be homosexual and had higher CD4 nadirs than those who were receiving ARV treatment. Almost half of these patients had previously received ARV therapy but were not currently receiving it. CONCLUSION: Only a small proportion of patients at our centre were not receiving ARV treatment in line with national guidelines. While genuine reasons may exist for these departures from optimal care, this may simply reflect the limitations of using observational databases when auditing treatment use in a clinic setting.
OBJECTIVE: To audit the use of antiretroviral (ARV) treatment in a large treatment clinic in the UK against the British HIV Association (BHIVA) ARV treatment guidelines. METHODS: All patients under follow-up between 1st January 2000 and 1st January 2001 were included. The most recent CD4 count and HIV RNA level prior to 1st January 2001, and the nadir CD4 count and peak HIV RNA level over follow-up, were used to identify which patients should be receiving HAART according to the guidelines. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and sixty-four patients were included in the analysis (63.8% homosexual, 29.0% heterosexual risk; 72.9% white; 79.2% male). Almost half of patients had ever had a CD4 count below 200 cells/ micro L and over 80% had previously had a viral load above 4 log10 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL. Under 2000 BHIVA guidelines, treatment would be recommended in 77.4% patients. Overall, 819 patients were receiving ARV therapy. Two hundred and eighty-five patients were not receiving treatment when guidelines suggest they should (including 33 patients who were receiving regimens not recommended in the guidelines). These patients were younger, less likely to be homosexual and had higher CD4 nadirs than those who were receiving ARV treatment. Almost half of these patients had previously received ARV therapy but were not currently receiving it. CONCLUSION: Only a small proportion of patients at our centre were not receiving ARV treatment in line with national guidelines. While genuine reasons may exist for these departures from optimal care, this may simply reflect the limitations of using observational databases when auditing treatment use in a clinic setting.
Authors: J Stebbing; S Sawleshwarkar; C Michailidis; R Jones; M Bower; S Mandalia; M Nelson; B Gazzard Journal: Postgrad Med J Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 2.401
Authors: Agnes N Kiragga; Barbara Castelnuovo; Petra Schaefer; Timothy Muwonge; Philippa J Easterbrook Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Barbara Castelnuovo; Agnes Kiragga; Victor Afayo; Malisa Ncube; Richard Orama; Stephen Magero; Peter Okwi; Yukari C Manabe; Andrew Kambugu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 3.240