Cancer Treatment in Patients With HIV Infection and Non-AIDS-Defining Cancers: A Survey of US Oncologists.

PURPOSE: HIV-infected individuals with non-AIDS-defining cancers are less likely to receive cancer treatment compared with uninfected individuals. We sought to identify provider-level factors influencing the delivery of oncology care to HIV-infected patients. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 500 randomly selected US medical and radiation oncologists. The primary outcome was delivery of standard treatment, assessed by responses to three specialty-specific management questions. We used the χ(2) test to evaluate associations between delivery of standard treatment, provider demographics, and perceptions of HIV-infected individuals. Multivariable logistic regression identified associations using factor analysis to combine several correlated survey questions. RESULTS: Our response rate was 60%; 69% of respondents felt that available cancer management guidelines were insufficient for the care of HIV-infected patients with cancer; 45% never or rarely discussed their cancer management plan with an HIV specialist; 20% and 15% of providers were not comfortable discussing cancer treatment adverse effects and prognosis with their HIV-infected patients with cancer, respectively; 79% indicated that they would provide standard cancer treatment to HIV-infected patients. In multivariable analysis, physicians comfortable discussing adverse effects and prognosis were more likely to provide standard cancer treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.07). Physicians with concerns about toxicity and efficacy of treatment were significantly less likely to provide standard cancer treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.85). CONCLUSION: Provider-level factors are associated with delivery of nonstandard cancer treatment to HIV-infected patients. Policy change, provider education, and multidisciplinary collaboration are needed to improve access to cancer treatment.

US veterans use vitamins and supplements as substitutes for prescription medication.

BACKGROUND: Vitamins and supplements are the most commonly used form of complementary and alternative medicine in the United States. Growing research suggests that patients substitute vitamins and supplements for their prescription medications. The reasons might include cost of prescription medications and discordant patient and doctor health belief systems. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of substitution of vitamins and supplements for prescription medications among veterans who receive care in the VA health care system and whether substitution is associated with prescription rationing due to cost, treatment beliefs, or distrust of the health system. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational survey. SUBJECTS: Primary care patients (n=275) at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center. MEASURES: Medication substitution, prescription medication rationing, treatment beliefs, and health system distrust were measured with structured instruments. Multivariate logistic regression was performed with substitution as the dependent variable. RESULTS: A significant number of primary care patients in the VA system use vitamins and supplements 206 (75%). The prevalence of medication substitution is high 48 (18%). Medication substitution is strongly associated with prescription rationing due to cost (adjusted odds ratio 6.3, 95% confidence interval: 2.0-19.5, P=0.001). Similarly, greater belief in complementary and alternative approaches to care positively predicts medication substitution (adjusted odds ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.15, P=0.011). There is no significant association between health system distrust and likelihood of medication substitution. CONCLUSIONS: Medication substitution is prevalent in this sample of inner city primary care patients who receive care in the VA system. Cost of prescriptions and belief in the value of complementary and alternative approaches to care appear to be associated with this patient-driven treatment decision.

Preventive cancer screening practices in HIV-positive patients.

As patients with HIV age, they are at risk of developing non-AIDS defining malignancies. We performed a questionnaire study to evaluate colorectal and breast cancer screening among HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients seeking care from either an integrated (HIV/primary care), nonintegrated (specialized HIV), or general internal medicine clinic between August 2010 and July 2011. We performed a logistic regression to determine the odds of cancer screening. A total of 813 surveys were collected, and 762 were included in the analysis. As much as 401 were from HIV-positive patients. Patients with HIV were less likely to be current with their colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) (54.4% versus 65.0%, p=0.009); mammography rates were 24.3% versus 62.3% if done during the past year (p<0.001), and 42.0% versus 86.7% if done during the past 5 years (p<0.001). In adjusted models, the odds of colorectal cancer screening in HIV-positive patients compared to negative controls was not statistically significant (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5-1.3); however, HIV-positive women remained significantly less likely to be current with breast cancer screening (BCS) whether their mammogram was completed within 1 year (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.1-0.2) or within 5 years (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.0-0.2). Integrated care was not associated with improved screening; however, having frequent visits to a primary care physician (PCP) increased the likelihood of getting screened. BCS was lower in HIV-positive compared to HIV-negative women. Frequent visits to a PCPs improved cancer screening.

The role of primary care physicians in improving colorectal cancer screening in patients with HIV.

BACKGROUND: As HIV positive patients live longer, they become susceptible to the development of non-AIDS defining malignancies. Little is known about routine cancer screening practices in that population and the factors associated with cancer screening. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate 1) the proportion of patients with HIV who had any type of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and 2) whether having a primary care physician (PCP) or seeking care in an integrated care practice is associated with higher CRC screening. DESIGN: A cross-sectional chart abstraction study of patients with HIV enrolled in the Philadelphia Medical Monitoring Project (MMP). PARTICIPANTS: MMP participants age 50 and older. MAIN MEASURES: CRC screening defined as having a documented colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, barium enema, or fecal occult blood test after the age of 50. KEY RESULTS: Out of 123 chart abstractions performed, 115 had a complete clinical record from MMP. The majority of the population was male (71.3%), Black/Hispanic (73.8%) and between the age of 50 and 59 (71.3%). 45.2% of patients did not have a PCP. The overall proportion of patients who received CRC screening was 46.9%. Having a documented PCP was the only factor strongly associated with CRC screening. Rates of screening were 66.7% among those with a PCP versus 28.5% among those without a PCP (χ(2) p < 0.001). After adjusting for race, socioeconomic status, substance and alcohol abuse, the odds of getting CRC screening in those with a PCP was 4.59 (95% CI 2.01-10.48, p < 0.001). The type of practice where patients were enrolled into care was not associated with CRC screening. CONCLUSIONS: Having a PCP significantly increases the likelihood of receiving CRC screening in patients with HIV. Competency in addressing primary care needs in HIV clinics will only become more important as patients with HIV age.