1 / 29

Getting to Virologic Suppression

Getting to Virologic Suppression. Tess Barton, MD Medical Director, ARMS Clinic Children’s Medical Center Dallas. Diagnosis & Linkage to Care. Routine Medical Care & Monitoring. HIV Treatment. Virologic Suppression. Improve healthy survival. Reduce HIV transmission.

tulia
Download Presentation

Getting to Virologic Suppression

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Getting to Virologic Suppression Tess Barton, MD Medical Director, ARMS Clinic Children’s Medical Center Dallas

  2. Diagnosis & Linkage to Care Routine Medical Care & Monitoring HIV Treatment Virologic Suppression Improve healthy survival Reduce HIV transmission

  3. Timely appointments available Patient keeps appointments Monitoring/screening is done Results/problems are addressed Diagnosis & Linkage to Care Routine Medical Care & Monitoring HIV Treatment Virologic Suppression Improve healthy survival Reduce HIV transmission

  4. Diagnosis & Linkage to Care Routine Medical Care & Monitoring Medical Assessment for Treatment Patient Readiness Assessed Funding for Medication Secured Barriers to Adherence Recognized HIV Treatment Virologic Suppression Improve healthy survival Reduce HIV transmission

  5. Diagnosis & Linkage to Care Routine Medical Care & Monitoring HIV Treatment Resistance Testing to Determine Best Regimen Monitoring of Treatment Labs Definition of Suppression Adherence Assessment Ongoing Funding Virologic Suppression Improve healthy survival Reduce HIV transmission

  6. CMC Performance Measures • 3 patients with <2 visits in 12 months • 2 in process of moving during reporting period • (both virologically suppressed!) • 1 truly not seen >6 months 38%??? How is this possible?

  7. Retention in Care • Appointment Processes • New patients • Sources of most referrals: Health Dept, outside MDs, CMC inpatient • Direct phone contact between family + program coordinator • Same day appointment available with MD (can see MD same day of dx, if needed) • Financial counseling done on arrival • Existing patients • Follow-up appointment made at time of checkout, provided on written visit summary (most @ 3 month intervals) • Pre-registration 3-7 days before appointment • Phone call from program coordinator day before • Program coordinator cell # available for teens – text reminders PRN

  8. Retention in Care • Minimizing lost-to-care • Missed appointments • Same-day call from front desk or program coordinator • Multiple team members with access to electronic scheduling (minimal phone transfers) • Telephone, email, Facebook, text msg, UTSW peers • If unable to make contact in 2 weeks, certified letter sent • Overdue appointments • CareWare used to generate custom report of patients not seen in >4 months • Program coordinator + social worker contact these families to make appointment

  9. Retention to Care • Unmeasurable Factors • Personal touch • Use of minimal personnel – family knows the person who is calling • Friendly atmosphere • Hugs from MD, birthday treats, personal conversations • Creating closer patient + team relationship • Camps, teen group, parent support group, Facebook • Availability • Same-day appointments, sick visits, 24-hour on-call provider • Personal contact

  10. Retention to Care • Challenges • 20% no-show rate for each clinic session despite efforts • 3-month visits + vigilant chasing of no-shows leads to good performance on HAB measure • Staff effort/phone calls difficult to track and fund • 10 phone calls/messages to get a patient to keep 1 appointment is not a billable or reimbursable service • How much additional time is spent documenting • Additional activities to create relationships requires time + money

  11. CMC Performance Measures 42/108 = 38% • Only 1 patient not seen in >6 months • 14/108 (13%) not on treatment

  12. Viral Suppression • In+Care Campaign Measure: Retention Measure 4: Viral Load Suppression • Percentage of patients, regardless of age, with a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS with a viral load less than 200 copies/mL at last viral load test during the measurement year • Why? • Critical link between efforts at medical care and healthy patient survival • Recent indication of viral suppression as means of preventing transmission

  13. VL Not Suppressed • Not on treatment = 13% (n=14) • CD4 >500 = 7 • CD4 350-500 = 4 • 2 started on medications after reporting period • 1 transitioned to adult care • 1 disclosed in preparation • CD4 <350 = 3 • all started on medications after reporting period

  14. VL Not Suppressed • 27 had VL<200 within 6 months before/after • Blips • Assay variation • Re-suppression • Regimen change • 25/94 (26%) treated patients had VL <1000 • VL 200-500 = 16 • VL 500-1000 = 9

  15. Low Level Viremia – E.R. Case • 18 year-old male • Tested HIV+ with blood donation 11/2010 - 12/2010 – received notification from Carter BloodCare • 12/16 – CMC ER visit to get evaluated – PCR sent • 12/21 – ARMS Clinic MD appointment to discuss results

  16. Virologic History Always reporting 100% adherence Is the lab assay used at PHHS different than the one used by CMC (sent to ARUP)? If purpose of treatment is improved healthy survival and reduced transmission, am I concerned about this viral load?

  17. VL Not Suppressed • 38% virologically suppressed • 13% not requiring treatment • 23% low level viremia, or having blips Chart Review of 62 non-suppressed patients revealed that 30 had adherence problems 26% truly not virologically suppressed

  18. Adherence Problems • Randomly chosen cases to present today: • Patient A. – 17 y/o perinatal HIV • VL 23,000; CD4 442 • Conflicts with dad over authority, sexual orientation • Asserting independence, exploring autonomy – medications not a priority for him • Probable bipolar d/o, refusing treatment • Solution: JobCorps, needs to mature, keep engaged in care during uncertain living situation, reinforce safe sex, wait

  19. Adherence Problems • Patient B. – 11 year-old perinatal HIV • VL 1100, CD4 1209 • Recently moved to Dallas area (labs were 2nd visit) • Recently disclosed, does admit to missed doses (mostly forgotten) • Mom with long hx non-adherence • Solutions: CPS involved at time of transfer to Dallas, reminders, enlisted help of nearby aunt to assist mom, gave child task of reminding mom to take her own medicines, enroll in summer camp for HIV+ kids

  20. Adherence Problems • Patient C. – 10 y/o perinatal HIV/AIDS, lowest CD4 190s, no AIDS illnesses • Not disclosed, mom not ready • Mom never adherent - recently hospitalized with PCP, very ill; mom’s partner not aware of her HIV status • Older HIV-negative brother recently learned mom, brother HIV status • VL 1100, CD4 914 (up from 200s 9 months ago) • Solutions: CPS involved numerous times; mom and patient clearly trying now; regimen recently optimized for once-daily and reduced side effects; enlist help of older brother; pressuring mom to allow disclosure

  21. Adherence Problems • Patient D • . – 12 month perinatal HIV, asymptomatic • VL 49,000; CD4 24.1% • Mom in denial about HIV during pregnancy, still not in care for herself; struggling emotionally with infant infection • After extended visit, she admitted to not giving infant medications due to emotional distress – expressed relief after confessing, and commitment to improving • Next VL 870, CD4 43% • Solutions: Continue to support mom, encourage her to stay in care, frequent appointments (transportation assistance needed)

  22. CMC Performance Review • How can CMC have 98% retention in care, but only 38% virologically suppressed? • Patients being brought into care, tracked closely, monitored and assessed • Partly related to inherent reporting flaws • Single time point of dynamic value • Denominator including untreated patients • Nuances of viral load vs. clinical status – the art of medicine • Our barrier to VL suppression is not lack of retention

  23. CMC Performance Review Adherence barriers are highly individualized Single solution approach will not impact overall suppression rate Standardized adherence assessments are NOT the solution in a setting where adherence barriers are already being recognized Can make #s look prettier for reporting purposes with no real change in patient care Confounding issues of blood volume, cost May investigate further to minimize provider frustration and patient anxiety • Areas for improvement • Evaluation of VL assay • ADHERENCE • How often are adherence assessments done? • How are adherence assessments done? • Multifactorial solution • Mental health issues • Adolescent emotional development • Caregiver role • Treatment readiness • Bribery? 

  24. Timely appointments available Patient keeps appointments Monitoring/screening is done Results/problems are addressed Diagnosis & Linkage to Care ✓ Routine Medical Care & Monitoring HIV Treatment Virologic Suppression Improve healthy survival Reduce HIV transmission

  25. Diagnosis & Linkage to Care ✓ Routine Medical Care & Monitoring Medical Assessment for Treatment Patient Readiness Assessed Funding for Medication Secured Barriers to Adherence Recognized ✓ HIV Treatment Virologic Suppression Improve healthy survival Reduce HIV transmission

  26. Diagnosis & Linkage to Care Routine Medical Care & Monitoring ✓ HIV Treatment Resistance Testing to Determine Best Regimen Monitoring of Treatment Labs Definition of Suppression Adherence Assessment Ongoing Funding ✓ Virologic Suppression Improve healthy survival Reduce HIV transmission

  27. Questions?

  28. Follow-up Project • Attempted to arrange duplicate viral load testing • ARUP vs. Mayo • Blood sent on 3, only able to obtain results for 1 • VL 230 vs 270 • County hospital tests remain <20 for those transitioned patients • Next step: Switch to county lab for 2-3 month trial period

  29. Follow-Up Data • From 4/1/2011-3/31/2012 • InCare Viral Load Suppression Measure 50/108=46.3% (this is the measure we currently use in the Regional Group) • Viral Load Suppression for those clients who are on ARVs (all ages): 47/88=53.41% • Viral Load Suppression for those clients who are on ARVs and below 13 yrs: 24/35= 68.6% • Viral Load Suppression for those clients who are on ARVs and 13 yrs and older: 23/53=43.4% • Viral Load Suppression for all ages using the new HAB measure indicator definition: 46/84=54.8%

More Related