Impact of low-level viremia on clinical and virological outcomes in treated HIV-1-infected patients.

BACKGROUND: The goal of antiretroviral therapy (ART) is to reduce HIV-related morbidity and mortality by suppressing HIV replication. The prognostic value of persistent low-level viremia (LLV), particularly for clinical outcomes, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Assess the association of different levels of LLV with virological failure, AIDS event, and death among HIV-infected patients receiving combination ART. METHODS: We analyzed data from 18 cohorts in Europe and North America, contributing to the ART Cohort Collaboration. Eligible patients achieved viral load below 50 copies/ml within 3-9 months after ART initiation. LLV50-199 was defined as two consecutive viral loads between 50 and 199 copies/ml and LLV200-499 as two consecutive viral loads between 50 and 499 copies/ml, with at least one between 200 and 499 copies/ml. We used Cox models to estimate the association of LLV with virological failure (two consecutive viral loads at least 500 copies/ml or one viral load at least 500 copies/ml, followed by a modification of ART) and AIDS event/death. RESULTS: Among 17 902 patients, 624 (3.5%) experienced LLV50-199 and 482 (2.7%) LLV200-499. Median follow-up was 2.3 and 3.1 years for virological and clinical outcomes, respectively. There were 1903 virological failure, 532 AIDS events and 480 deaths. LLV200-499 was strongly associated with virological failure [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 3.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.05-5.17]. LLV50-199 was weakly associated with virological failure (aHR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96-2.00). LLV50-199 and LLV200-499 were not associated with AIDS event/death (aHR 1.19, 95% CI 0.78-1.82; and aHR 1.11, 95% CI 0.72-1.71, respectively). CONCLUSION: LLV200-499 was strongly associated with virological failure, but not with AIDS event/death. Our results support the US guidelines, which define virological failure as a confirmed viral load above 200 copies/ml.

Sickness certification in primary care: a survey on views and practices among Swiss physicians.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: Studies from several countries (Scandinavia, United Kingdom) report that general practitioners (GPs) experience problems in sickness certification. Our study explored views of Swiss GPs towards sickness certification, their practice and experience, professional skills and problematic interactions with patients. METHODS: We conducted an online survey among GPs throughout Switzerland, exploring behaviour of physicians, patients and employers with regard to sickness certification; GPs' views about sickness certification; required competences for certifying sickness absence, and approaches to advance their competence. We piloted the questionnaire and disseminated it through the networks of the five Swiss academic institutes for primary care. RESULTS: We received 507 valid responses (response rate 50%). Only 43/507 GPs experienced sickness certification as problematic per se, yet 155/507 experienced problems in sickness certification at least once a week. The 507 GPs identified estimating a long-term prognosis about work capacity (64%), handling conflicts with patients (54%), and determining the reduction of work capacity (42%) as problematic. Over 75% would welcome special training opportunities, e.g., on sickness certifications during residency (93%), in insurance medicine (81%), and conflict management (80%). CONCLUSION: Sickness certification as such does not present a major problem to Swiss GPs, which contrasts with the experience in Scandinavian countries and in the UK. Swiss GPs did identify specific tasks of sickness certification as problematic. Training opportunities on sick-leave certification and insurance medicine in general were welcomed.