A national review of assessment and monitoring of HIV-infected patients

Role of the clinical immunology laboratory in disease monitoring

Immunological investigations provide useful information to guide diagnosis of several disorders. Many such tests are also commonly repeated at intervals, in an effort to facilitate disease monitoring. In general however, immunology test results are often slow to alter. Furthermore, audit activity has indicated that repeated testing accounts for a substantial workload in many immunology services, which may waste resources and compromise the efficient completion of necessary tests. Consequently, the need and appropriate minimum interval between repeated testing requires critical evaluation. In this review, the clinical utility of repeated performance of several common immunology investigations has been evaluated, based upon published evidence. In some cases (e.g., paraprotein quantification, or measurement of anti-glomerular basement membrane antibodies), repeated testing provides vital clinical information and can be justified on a frequent and individualized basis. However, many other investigations provided by immunology services provide less valuable information when used to aid disease monitoring rather than diagnosis. It is hoped that the data summarized here will facilitate a more evidence-based approach to repeated testing. Such information may also assist with the local implementation of demand management strategies based upon setting of minimum retesting intervals for these investigations.

The use of an electronic checklist in the electronic patient record to achieve annually recommended outcomes based on British HIV Association guidelines

An electronic search was performed of the electronic patient record (EPR) system to identify whether each of 13 key interventions recommended by the British HIV Association (BHIVA) had been performed for all eligible patients attending in 2009 and 2010 at one of our HIV clinics: 345 and 358 eligible HIV-positive patients were identified in 2009 and 2010, respectively. The success rates for having completed each intervention in 2009 and 2010, respectively, were all better for 2010 and none was <94%. These improved results in 2010 over those of 2009 could be attributed to the clinicians’ improved experience in using the checklist and the facility of EPR to provide flagged reminders.

Development and validation of decision rules to guide frequency of monitoring CD4 cell count in HIV-1 infection before starting antiretroviral therapy

Background

Although CD4 cell count monitoring is used to decide when to start antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV-1 infection, there are no evidence-based recommendations regarding its optimal frequency. It is common practice to monitor every 3 to 6 months, often coupled with viral load monitoring. We developed rules to guide frequency of CD4 cell count monitoring in HIV infection before starting antiretroviral therapy, which we validated retrospectively in patients from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We built up two prediction rules (“Snap-shot rule” for a single sample and “Track-shot rule” for multiple determinations) based on a systematic review of published longitudinal analyses of CD4 cell count trajectories. We applied the rules in 2608 untreated patients to classify their 18 061 CD4 counts as either justifiable or superfluous, according to their prior ≥5% or <5% chance of meeting predetermined thresholds for starting treatment. The percentage of measurements that both rules falsely deemed superfluous never exceeded 5%. Superfluous CD4 determinations represented 4%, 11%, and 39% of all actual determinations for treatment thresholds of 500, 350, and 200×10⁶/L, respectively. The Track-shot rule was only marginally superior to the Snap-shot rule. Both rules lose usefulness for CD4 counts coming near to treatment threshold.

Conclusions/Significance

Frequent CD4 count monitoring of patients with CD4 counts well above the threshold for initiating therapy is unlikely to identify patients who require therapy. It appears sufficient to measure CD4 cell count 1 year after a count >650 for a threshold of 200, >900 for 350, or >1150 for 500×10⁶/L, respectively. When CD4 counts fall below these limits, increased monitoring frequency becomes advisable. These rules offer guidance for efficient CD4 monitoring, particularly in resource-limited settings.