Get the content you want anytime you want.
REGISTER NOW | SIGN IN
ARTICLE

Some Patients with HIV Can Maintain Optimal Viral Loads with Fewer Primary Care Visits

MAY 17, 2018 | GAIL CONNOR ROCHE
The results of a new study published in AIDS Patient Care and STDs reveal that gaps in care of up to 9 months do not worsen viral loads for some groups of patients with HIV.

Current guidelines state that gaps in visits to primary care doctors should not exceed 6 months for clinically stable patients with HIV who have sustained viral suppression; however, according to investigators from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Mental Health, and several US university medical schools, longer lapses in care are common.

“Cohort studies have shown that gaps in care range from 27% to 63% in patients with a new HIV diagnosis and 24% to 35% in cohorts that contain a majority of established patients,” the authors said. Given the discrepancies between recommendations and reality, the team set out to investigate how gaps in care impact patients with HIV.

The investigators looked at the association between gap length and viral load status and sought to determine the care intervals at which HIV loads increase significantly.

Over 6000 HIV-positive adults at 6 US-based clinics were included in the observational cohort study. The investigators identified patients who fell into 5 specific interval-gaps in their primary care visits: more than 6 months but less than 7; 7 months to less than 8; 8 months to less than 9; 9 months to less than 12; and 12 months or more.

Two viral load outcomes were examined: a continuous measure of log10 viral load and a dichotomous measure.

The dichotomous measure applied to patients where HIV was already suppressed with the goal of assessing how many patients lost suppression as the care gap increased. “This measure is very important for clinicians as they monitor suppressed patients over time,” lead author Lytt I. Gardner, PhD, an epidemiologist at the CDC’s Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, told Contagion®’s sister publication, MD Magazine.

The log10 measure applied to all patients. This measure is used for presenting the entire picture of individuals with gaps in care, regardless of suppression status at the start of the gap. 

“This measure could be useful for researchers comparing different HIV clinics with different baseline percentages of virally suppressed patients,” shared Dr. Gardner.

The investigators found that viral load increases were non-significant or modest when the gap length was less than 9 months, with about 10% of patients or fewer losing viral suppression.

“One surprise was that those initially suppressed patients with gaps up to 9 months showed only 10% or less failure to maintain viral suppression,” explained Dr. Gardner. “Even with these gaps of 6 and up to 9 months, it appears that the vast majority of these patients were still taking their antiretroviral therapies (ART).”

For gaps of 12 months or greater, however, there was a big increase in viral load. There also was a much larger loss of viral suppression, affecting 23% of patients.

Patients who were young, black, or without health insurance were hardest hit by care gaps. These individuals may face more roadblocks in adhering to ART, the team speculated.

The longest average gaps in care and the highest level of not maintaining a suppressed viral load after a gap was seen in patients aged 18 to 39. The investigators suggest that “this subgroup of patients may benefit from more frequent viral load monitoring.”

Conversely, according to Dr. Gardner, extending care visit intervals should be considered for patients with suppressed viral loads who have access to prescription refills.

“Such patients ought to be carefully selected, as the tradeoff is that patients who are lost to care for 9 months or more are more difficult to relocate, which would be a challenge to reengagement efforts,” he cautioned.

Provider attitudes about moving toward differentiated care also must be taken into account, he said. Data from this study may help initiate such changes.

“The current US Department of Health and Human Services guidelines are reconsidered periodically in light of the most current data,” explained Dr. Gardner. “Our data would be important for them to consider the next time they review the maximum interval for viral monitoring and face-face care.”

An earlier version of this article appeared on MD Magazine.
To stay informed on the latest in infectious disease news and developments, please sign up for our weekly newsletter.


FEATURED
Is there a cure? How long until we find it? And will it work for the majority of people living with HIV?