Major differences in organization and availability of health care and medicines for HIV/TB coinfected patients across Europe

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to investigate the organization and delivery of HIV and tuberculosis (TB) health care and to analyse potential differences between treatment centres in Eastern (EE) and Western Europe (WE). METHODS Thirty-eight European HIV and TB treatment centres participating in the TB:HIV study within EuroCoord completed a survey on health care management for coinfected patients in 2013 (EE: 17 respondents; WE:21; 76% of all TB:HIV centres). Descriptive statistics were obtained for regional comparisons. The reported data on health care strategies were compared with actual clinical practice at patient level via data derived from the TB:HIV study. RESULTS Respondent centres in EE comprised: Belarus (n = 3), Estonia (1), Georgia (1), Latvia (1), Lithuania (1), Poland (4), Romania (1), the Russian Federation (4) and Ukraine (1); those in WE comprised: Belgium (1), Denmark (1), France (1), Italy (7), Spain (2), Switzerland (1) and UK (8). Compared with WE, treatment of HIV and TB in EE are less often located at the same site (47% in EE versus 100% in WE; P < 0.001) and less often provided by the same doctors (41% versus 90%, respectively; P = 0.002), whereas regular screening of HIV-infected patients for TB (80% versus 40%, respectively; P = 0.037) and directly observed treatment (88% versus 20%, respectively; P < 0.001) were more common in EE. The reported availability of rifabutin and second- and third-line anti-TB drugs was lower, and opioid substitution therapy (OST) was available at fewer centres in EE compared with WE (53% versus 100%, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Major differences exist between EE and WE in relation to the organization and delivery of health care for HIV/TB-coinfected patients and the availability of anti-TB drugs and OST. Significant discrepancies between reported and actual clinical practices were found in EE.

SwissScoring--a nationwide survey of SAPS II assessing practices and its accuracy.

OBJECTIVE The first description of the simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) II dates back to 1993, but little is known about its accuracy in daily practice. Our purpose was to evaluate the accuracy of scoring and the factors that affect it in a nationwide survey. METHODS Twenty clinical scenarios, covering a broad range of illness severities, were randomly assigned to a convenience sample of physicians or nurses in Swiss adult intensive care units (ICUs), who were asked to assess the SAPS II score for a single scenario. These data were compared to a reference that was defined by five experienced researchers. The results were cross-matched with demographic characteristics and data on the training and quality control for the scoring, structural and organisational properties of each participating ICU. RESULTS A total of 345 caregivers from 53 adult ICU providers completed the SAPS II evaluation of one clinical scenario. The mean SAPS II scoring was 42.6 ± 23.4, with a bias of +5.74 (95%CI 2.0-9.5) compared to the reference score. There was no evidence of bias variation according to the case severity, ICU size, linguistic area, profession (physician vs. nurse), experience, initial SAPS II training, or presence of a quality control system. CONCLUSION This nationwide survey revealed substantial variability in the SAPS II scoring results. On average, SAPS II scoring was overestimated by more than 13%, irrespective of the profession or experience of the scorer or of the structural characteristics of the ICUs.