Treat early or wait and monitor? A qualitative analysis of provider hepatitis C virus treatment decision-making in the context of HIV coinfection.

RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407, USA.
AIDS patient care and STDs (Impact Factor: 3.58). 09/2009; 23(9):715-25. DOI: 10.1089/apc.2009.0049
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Liver disease is a leading cause of death among patients with HIV coinfected with hepatitis C (HCV); yet, studies show that less than 10% receive HCV treatment, in part because of limited treatment response, high treatment toxicity, and psychosocial barriers to treatment readiness. Using a process model framework, we sought to explore the factors and processes by which providers make HCV treatment decisions for HIV-coinfected patients. We conducted 22 semistructured interviews with primary care providers and support staff at three HIV clinics in Los Angeles, California, in which rates of HCV treatment uptake varied from 10% to 38%. Providers agreed that stable HIV disease, favorable genotype, and significant signs of liver disease progression are all signs of need for treatment. However, two divergent treatment approaches emerged for genotype 1 and 4 patients with minimal disease, and in definitions of patient readiness. Providers with lower treatment rates preferred to delay treatment in hopes of better future treatment options, and were more conservative in requiring complete mental health screens and treatment and abstinence from substance use. Conversely, providers with higher treatment rates viewed all patients as needing treatment as soon as possible, and defined readiness more leniently, with some willing to treat even in the context of untreated depression and drug use, so long as ability to adhere well was demonstrated. Regardless of whether an aggressive or cautious approach to treatment is used, development of effective programs for promoting patient treatment readiness is critical to ensuring greater treatment uptake.

Download full-text


Available from: Matthew Bidwell Goetz, Aug 21, 2015
  • Source
    • "A few provider surveys have revealed reasons for classifying patients as ineligible for IRT (Fultz et al., 2003; Thompson et al., 2005). However, there is a lack of data on how providers' treatment decisions are shaped by their assessment of IRT's side effects against its effectiveness (see exception, Wagner et al., 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the high prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among injection drug users also infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and the synergistic adverse effect of the two diseases on patients' health and survival, research on the clinical management of these patients and particularly the low uptake of HCV therapy is limited. We conducted qualitative interviews with 17 HIV providers from two urban public hospitals. We discovered that the limitations of the current state of medical knowledge, the severe side effects of HIV and HCV therapies, and the psychosocial vulnerability of HIV/HCV-coinfected patients combined with their resistance to becoming informed about HCV posed significant challenges for providers. To contend with these challenges, providers incorporated key dimensions of patient-centered medicine in their practice, such as considering their patients' psychosocial profiles and the meaning patients assign to being coinfected, and finding ways to engage their patients in a therapeutic alliance.
    Qualitative Health Research 08/2011; 22(1):54-66. DOI:10.1177/1049732311418248 · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.11.016 chiatric effects of interferon, re-infection and the short-term threat of drug use (Davis and Rodrigue, 2001; Wagner et al., 2009). In 2002, IDU was retracted as a treatment contraindication by the National Institute of Health and in 2004 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (National Institute of Health, 2002; Strader et al., 2004). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A minority of HIV/HCV coinfected patients with opiate addiction undergo HCV treatment. HCV therapy for HCV-monoinfected methadone maintenance (MM) recipients is safe and effective. We evaluated treatment efficacy and adherence to pegylated interferon (pegIFN) among HIV/HCV coinfected MM recipients. HCV treatment-naïve, HIV-infected persons 18-65 years with chronic HCV genotype 1 on MM were prospectively enrolled in an HCV treatment study at two HIV clinics. At weekly visits pegIFN alfa-2a injections were directly administered. Daily MM recipients had morning ribavirin delivered with methadone at off-site methadone clinics. Weekly take-home MM recipients took ribavirin unsupervised. Target enrollment was 30 participants. During 18 recruitment months, 11 participants were enrolled, 6 of whom received daily methadone. Mean age was 46, 64% were female, 5 were Caucasian, 4 Black and 2 Hispanic. At baseline, 82% had high HCV RNA and 55% had stage 2 fibrosis or greater. The majority (91%) were on HAART, and 82% had undetectable HIV RNA with a median CD4(+) of 508cells/μL. All had polysubstance use history, non-substance-based psychiatric diagnoses and were on psychotropic medications pre-enrollment. Two (18%) participants achieved a Sustained Virologic Response (SVR). Two completed 48 treatment weeks, 5 were withdrawn due to adverse events, 2 dropped out prematurely and 2 had treatment discontinued for virologic non-response. Of on-treatment weeks, adherence to pegIFN was >99%. SVR rate was comparable to historic controls for coinfected genotype 1 patients, with optimal pegIFN adherence. Adverse effects often prevented therapy completion in this population.
    Drug and alcohol dependence 12/2010; 116(1-3):233-7. DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.11.016 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Liver disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among patients coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C (HCV), yet few HIV coinfected patients actually receive HCV treatment. Providers must first be willing to prescribe treatment, but the patient ultimately makes the decision to accept or decline a treatment recommendation. We used a process model framework to explore the factors influencing patients' treatment decision-making. We conducted semistructured interviews with 35 HIV coinfected patients and 11 primary care providers at three HIV clinics in Los Angeles, California. Patients reported that stability of HIV disease, perceived need for HCV treatment, treatment readiness, willingness to deal with side effects, absence of substance abuse, and stability of mental health and overall life circumstances are key factors influencing treatment decision-making. Patients also spoke of the influence of the trusting relationship that many had with their provider, and providers acknowledged an awareness of the influence of how they present the risks and benefits of HCV treatment and the overall tone of their recommendation (encouraging, dissuasive, or neutral). These results speak to a social decision-making process between the patient and provider-a partnership that involves sequential interactions whereby both the patient and provider may influence the other's evaluation of the patient's readiness for treatment, with treatment initiation dependent on both agreeing on the need for treatment and the patient's readiness for treatment.
    AIDS patient care and STDs 11/2009; 23(12):993-9. DOI:10.1089/apc.2009.0153 · 3.58 Impact Factor
Show more