It is well established that retention in high-quality care and regular visits with an HIV/AIDS provider improve outcomes for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). However, nationally and regionally in South Carolina, retention rates remain low. We piloted an outreach program focused on characterizing out of care (OOC) patients to identify PLWHA who were lost to care and attempt reengagement through phone call, letter, and home visit interventions. Primary outcomes were reengagement, defined as attendance to a clinic appointment, and retention in care, defined by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) definition (two visits at least 90 days apart in 2015). There were 1242 adult clinic patients in 2014. A total of 233 patients were included in the OOC cohort, according to the inclusion criteria. Of these 233, the outreach coordinator found that a majority of patients, 119 (51%), were lost to care. Reengagement was seen in 52 (44%) patients lost to care, and among those who reengaged, 26 (50%) were retained in care in 2015. This report represents one of few interventions that target reengagement for patients who are lost to care. The use of an outreach coordinator was successful in reengaging and retaining patients in care. It represents an uncomplicated intervention, functional within the current clinic design and available funding structure of the Ryan White grant. Poor engagement and retention in care continue to be significant problems among PLWHA with resultant poor clinical outcomes. Continued focus on new interventions to improve retention in care is necessary to improve clinical outcomes.

Retention in care remains a major problem for people living with HIV and it is well known that retention in high quality HIV care improves clinical outcomes. This project used an outreach coordinator to perform phone and letter interventions to improve retention in patients at risk of falling out of care. Sixty-one (5%) patients were at risk in 2015 and received an intervention by the outreach coordinator. Fifty (82%) had a visit and 22 (36%) met the HRSA definition of retention. The mean time per patient was 59 min; therefore, it took 2.7 h to achieve each retained patient or 1.2 h for each patient with a visit. By calculation, minutes over 75 appeared to be the point of diminishing returns. Cost analysis resulted in a cost of less than $100 per patient.

No abstract

Patients who are retained in HIV care have a higher likelihood of viral suppression and increased survival. Lab markers have been used as surrogate markers for clinical visits to estimate retention, but the accuracy of these markers at predicting retention in care has not been validated. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using patients newly diagnosed with HIV in the Emergency Department of Interim Louisiana Public Hospital (ILPH). Retention in care was defined as two clinical visits to an HIV provider separated by at least three months within a one-year period as per the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) definition. Retention by lab markers was defined as two documented labs, either a CD4 count or an HIV viral load, separated by at least three months within the same one-year period. Ninety-nine patients were newly diagnosed with HIV; 36 patients (36%) were retained at 1 year using the HRSA definition and 40 patients (40%) using lab markers. The sensitivity and specificity of using lab markers among the newly diagnosed were 100% and 93.7%, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 90% and 100%, respectively. Among the 99 patients, 56 were linked to the HIV clinic associated with our hospital, of which 63% (36) were retained at year 1 using the HRSA definition and 70% (39) using lab markers. The sensitivity and specificity of using lab markers among linked patients were 100% and 85%, respectively. The PPV and NPV were 92% and 100%, respectively. Lab markers slightly overestimate currently accepted definitions of retention. While lab markers may be the easiest way to estimate retention at the population level, further study should be done before lab markers are accepted as the gold standard surrogate measure for retention.

Eradication of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is now possible with all oral antiviral medications, including the combination of ombitasvir, paritaprevir, dasabuvir, and ritonavir (PrOD) with or without ribavirin. While high rates of sustained virologic response (SVR) can be achieved, a small subset of patients experience on-treatment liver enzyme elevations, in particular women using concurrent estradiol-containing oral contraceptive medications (OCPs). Herein, we describe four cases of liver enzyme elevations within 2-3 weeks of PrOD initiation in African-American men infected with HCV genotype 1a or 1b. Three patients with varying degrees of hepatic fibrosis received a full treatment course without medication modification, achieved SVR, and experienced resolution of liver enzyme abnormalities. One patient with cirrhosis was switched mid-treatment to an alternate HCV regimen, experienced subsequent resolution of liver enzyme abnormalities, and achieved SVR. In summary, these cases suggest that all HCV patients treated with PrOD, independent of gender or concurrent medications, should have laboratory monitoring for liver enzyme elevations, with a particular emphasis on early monitoring in cirrhotic patients.