A cross-site, comparative effectiveness study of an integrated HIV and substance use treatment program.

Co-occurrence of HIV and substance abuse is associated with poor outcomes for HIV-related health and substance use. Integration of substance use and medical care holds promise for HIV patients, yet few integrated treatment models have been reported. Most of the reported models lack data on treatment outcomes in diverse settings. This study examined the substance use outcomes of an integrated treatment model for patients with both HIV and substance use at three different clinics. Sites differed by type and degree of integration, with one integrated academic medical center, one co-located academic medical center, and one co-located community health center. Participants (n=286) received integrated substance use and HIV treatment for 12 months and were interviewed at 6-month intervals. We used linear generalized estimating equation regression analysis to examine changes in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) alcohol and drug severity scores. To test whether our treatment was differentially effective across sites, we compared a full model including site by time point interaction terms to a reduced model including only site fixed effects. Alcohol severity scores decreased significantly at 6 and 12 months. Drug severity scores decreased significantly at 12 months. Once baseline severity variation was incorporated into the model, there was no evidence of variation in alcohol or drug score changes by site. Substance use outcomes did not differ by age, gender, income, or race. This integrated treatment model offers an option for treating diverse patients with HIV and substance use in a variety of clinic settings. Studies with control groups are needed to confirm these findings.

Study protocol: the Adherence and Intensification of Medications (AIM) study--a cluster randomized controlled effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with diabetes have poor blood pressure (BP) control. Pharmacological therapy is the cornerstone of effective BP treatment, yet there are high rates both of poor medication adherence and failure to intensify medications. Successful medication management requires an effective partnership between providers who initiate and increase doses of effective medications and patients who adhere to the regimen. METHODS: In this cluster-randomized controlled effectiveness study, primary care teams within sites were randomized to a program led by a clinical pharmacist trained in motivational interviewing-based behavioral counseling approaches and authorized to make BP medication changes or to usual care. This study involved the collection of data during a 14-month intervention period in three Department of Veterans Affairs facilities and two Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities. The clinical pharmacist was supported by clinical information systems that enabled proactive identification of, and outreach to, eligible patients identified on the basis of poor BP control and either medication refill gaps or lack of recent medication intensification. The primary outcome is the relative change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements over time. Secondary outcomes are changes in Hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), medication adherence determined from pharmacy refill data, and medication intensification rates. DISCUSSION: Integration of the three intervention elements--proactive identification, adherence counseling and medication intensification--is essential to achieve optimal levels of control for high-risk patients. Testing the effectiveness of this intervention at the team level allows us to study the program as it would typically be implemented within a clinic setting, including how it integrates with other elements of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT00495794.

Clinical utility of a Web-enabled risk-assessment and clinical decision support program.

PURPOSE: Risk-stratified guidelines can improve quality of care and cost-effectiveness, but their uptake in primary care has been limited. MeTree, a Web-based, patient-facing risk-assessment and clinical decision support tool, is designed to facilitate uptake of risk-stratified guidelines. METHODS: A hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of three clinics (two intervention, one control). PARTICIPANTS: consentable nonadopted adults with upcoming appointments. PRIMARY OUTCOME: agreement between patient risk level and risk management for those meeting evidence-based criteria for increased-risk risk-management strategies (increased risk) and those who do not (average risk) before MeTree and after. MEASURES: chart abstraction was used to identify risk management related to colon, breast, and ovarian cancer, hereditary cancer, and thrombosis. RESULTS: Participants = 488, female = 284 (58.2%), white = 411 (85.7%), mean age = 58.7 (SD = 12.3). Agreement between risk management and risk level for all conditions for each participant, except for colon cancer, which was limited to those <50 years of age, was (i) 1.1% (N = 2/174) for the increased-risk group before MeTree and 16.1% (N = 28/174) after and (ii) 99.2% (N = 2,125/2,142) for the average-risk group before MeTree and 99.5% (N = 2,131/2,142) after. Of those receiving increased-risk risk-management strategies at baseline, 10.5% (N = 2/19) met criteria for increased risk. After MeTree, 80.7% (N = 46/57) met criteria. CONCLUSION: MeTree integration into primary care can improve uptake of risk-stratified guidelines and potentially reduce "overuse" and "underuse" of increased-risk services.Genet Med 18 10, 1020-1028.

Assessing Surveillance Elements of the Zanzibar Malaria Elimination Program to Support Malaria Elimination in Zanzibar

Though significant progress has been made through control efforts in recent years, malaria remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world, with 3.2 billion people at risk of developing the disease. Zanzibar is currently pursuing malaria elimination through the Zanzibar Malaria Elimination Program (ZAMEP), and is working toward a goal of no locally acquired malaria cases by 2018. A comprehensive and well functioning malaria surveillance program is central to achieving this goal. Under ZAMEP’s current surveillance strategy, District Malaria Surveillance Officers (DMSOs) respond to malaria case notifications through the reactive case detection (RACD) system. Three malaria screening and treatment strategies are undertaken in response to this system, including household-level (HSaT), focal-level (FSaT), and mass-level (MSaT). Each strategy is triggered by a different case threshold and tests different-sized populations. The aims of this study were to (1) assess the cost effectiveness of three malaria screening and treatment strategies; (2) assess the timeliness and completeness of ZAMEP’s RACD system; (3) and qualitatively explore the roles of DMSOs.

Screening disposition and budget information for 2014 screening and treatment strategies was analyzed to determine prevalence rates in screened populations and the cost effectiveness of each strategy. Prevalence rates within the screened population varied by strategy: 6.1 percent in HSaT, 1.2 percent in FSaT, and 0.9 percent in MSaT. Of the various costing scenarios considering cost per person screened, MSaT was the most cost-effective, with costs ranging from $9.57 to $12.57 per person screened. Of the various costing scenarios considering cost per case detected, HSaT was the most cost-effective, at $385.51 per case detected.

Case data from 2013 through mid-2015 was used to assess the timeliness and completeness of the RACD system. The average number of RACD activities occurring within 48 hours of notification improved slightly between 2013 and the first half of 2015, from 90.7 percent to 93.1 percent. The average percentage of household members screened during RACD also increased over the same time period, from 84 percent in 2013 to 89.9 percent in the first half of 2015.

Interviews with twenty DMSOs were conducted to gain insights into the challenges to malaria elimination both from the health system and the community perspectives. Major themes discussed in the interviews include the need for additional training, inadequate information capture at health facility, resistance to household testing, transportation difficulties, inadequate personnel during the high transmission season, and community misinformation.

Zanzibar is now considered a low transmission setting, making elimination feasible, but also posing new challenges to achieving this goal. The findings of this study provide insight into how surveillance activities can be improved to support the goal of malaria elimination in Zanzibar. Key changes include reevaluating the use of MSaT activities, improving information capture at health facilities, hiring additional DMSOs during the high transmission season, and improving community communication.