Search

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the attitudes of drug treatment program providers concerning human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) post-exposure therapy (PET) for drug users enrolled in drug treatment. This was a cross-sectional evaluation of drug treatment program providers in four methadone maintenance programs (MMPs) in New Haven, Connecticut. Thirty-five MMP providers including: 29 MMP treatment staff (physicians, nurses, counselors) and 6 primary care provider staff (physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses) participated in the study. The providers were presented with four case vignettes of individuals exposed to HIV through a needle stick ("stick"): a phlebotomist with occupational exposure (Case A) and three drug users with nonoccupational exposure to HIV (Cases B, C, and D). Case B had the same estimated future risk as Case A (three sticks/4 years) and the other cases had increased risk: Case C (four to six sticks/year) and Case D (monthly "sticks"). For each vignette, providers were asked whether they would offer HIV PET ("yes" or "no"). In addition, focus groups were held within each group of providers who were asked: "What role should drug treatment programs play in the implementation of PET?" All MMP staff (29/29) and primary care providers (6/6) felt that the phlebotomist with occupational exposure should be offered PET. The percent of MMP and Primary care provider staff recommending PET for the other cases were: Case B (MMP staff: 86% [25/29], PCPs: 100% [6/6]), Case C (MMP staff: 69% [20/29], PCPs: 33% [2/6]), and Case D (MMP staff: 59% [17/29], PCPs: 17% [1/6]). The "common themes" that were identified in the focus groups included: concern that MMPs lack resources to provide PET, the ethics of withholding PET, the "limit" on the number of times PET should be offered, and the role of PET in the overall HIV prevention message. Both MMP staff and PCPs felt that MMPs should have an "indirect" role in providing HIV PET by providing education and referral only. MMP staff and PCPs differed in their likelihood of offering HIV PET to drug users enrolled in MMPs. The possibility of HIV PET for drug users in treatment raises significant implementation issues for MMPs that will require further study if HIV PET becomes widely used in drug users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: 1) To develop and teach a brief intervention (BI) for "hazardous and harmful" (HH) drinkers in the emergency department (ED); 2) to determine whether emergency practitioners (EPs) (faculty, residents, and physician associates) can demonstrate proficiency in the intervention; and 3) to determine whether it is feasible for EPs to perform the BI during routine clinical care., Methods: The Brief Negotiation Interview (BNI) was developed for a population of HH drinkers. EPs working in an urban, teaching hospital were trained during two-hour skills-based sessions. They were then tested for adherence to and competence with the BNI protocol using standardized patient scenarios and a checklist of critical components of the BNI. Finally, the EPs performed the BNI as part of routine ED clinical care in the context of a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of BI on patient outcomes., Results: The BNI was developed, modified, and finalized in a manual, based on pilot testing. Eleven training sessions with 58 EPs were conducted from March 2002 to August 2003. Ninety-one percent (53/58) of the trained EPs passed the proficiency examination; 96% passed after remediation. Two EPs left prior to remediation. Subsequently, 247 BNIs were performed by 47 EPs. The mean (+/- standard deviation) number of BNIs per EP was 5.28 (+/- 4.91; range 0-28). The mean duration of the BNI was 7.75 minutes (+/- 3.18; range 4-24)., Conclusions: A BNI for HH drinkers can be successfully developed for EPs. EPs can demonstrate proficiency in performing the BNI in routine ED clinical practice.

Active drug users with HIV infection suffer from both low utilization of, and adherence to, primary care. Combining drug treatment and primary care on-site reduces these problems significantly because it creates a social support structure; treatment program staffs can monitor patients' adherence and provide ongoing encouragement. But in the United States, only a very small minority of HIV + drug users receive this demonstrably effective form of care. We report the results from a feasibility study of an alternative support structure, termed a "peer-driven intervention", that serves as a functional equivalent to drug treatment for increasing drug users' adherence to HIV therapeutics. The six-month study included 14 adult active drug users receiving medical care for HIV disease in New Haven, Connecticut. As a health advocate, each subject was assigned and asked to meet with another subject once a week at the project's storefront to provide peer support and counseling. As a peer, each subject was assigned and asked to meet with another health advocate once a week to receive support in keeping up his or her medical care. No two subjects played both roles for one another. Advocates earned nominal monetary rewards for eliciting positive responses from their peers in keeping clinical appointments, responding to physicians' referrals, picking up prescriptions on time and attending weekly meetings with the advocate. The results of the study suggest that an alternative social support structure to drug treatment is feasible for increasing active drug users' adherence to medical care. Innovative mechanisms that harness drug users' peer pressure to promote positive behavioral changes deserve greater study.

Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for heroin dependence. The feasibility and potential efficacy of buprenorphine with brief counseling in primary care is unknown. We enrolled 14 heroin dependent patients in a 13-week clinical trial using thrice weekly buprenorphine along with brief counseling in the primary care center of an urban medical center. Primary outcomes included urine toxicology and treatment retention. Opioid-positive urine toxicology tests reduced over the 13-week period from 95 to 25% (p < 0.05). Eleven patients (79%) had greater than or equal to one week of opioid-free urine toxicologies. Nine patients (64%) had greater than or equal to three weeks of opioid-free urine toxicologies. Eleven patients (79%) were retained through the maintenance phase. We conclude that buprenorphine maintenance is feasible in a primary care setting.