ABSTRACT
The British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) UK guideline for the management of epididymo-orchitis has been updated in 2020. It offers advice on diagnostic tests, treatment and health promotion principles in the effective management of epididymo-orchitis. Empirical treatment should be started in patients with objective swelling and tenderness on testicular examination. First-line empirical treatment for sexually acquired epididymo-orchitis has changed to ceftriaxone 1g intramuscularly and doxycycline. Higher dose of ceftriaxone in line with the BASHH 2018 gonorrhoea guideline ensures effective treatment of strains with reduced susceptibility. Ofloxacin or doxycycline is recommended in patients with epididymo-orchitis probably due to non-gonococcal organisms (e.g. negative microscopy for gram-negative intracellular diplococci or no risk factors for gonorrhoea identified). Where Mycoplasma genitalium is tested and identified, treatment should include an appropriate antibiotic (e.g. moxifloxacin). If enteric pathogens are a likely cause (e.g. older patient, not sexually active, recent instrumentation, men who practice insertive anal intercourse, men with known abnormalities of the urinary tract or a positive urine dipstick for leucocytes and nitrites), ofloxacin and levofloxacin are recommended. A clinical care pathway has been produced to simplify the management of epididymo-orchitis. A patient information leaflet has been developed.
Subject(s)
Epididymitis , HIV Infections , Orchitis , Sexual Health , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Epididymitis/diagnosis , Epididymitis/drug therapy , HIV Infections/complications , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Male , Orchitis/diagnosis , Orchitis/drug therapy , United KingdomABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the change in the mode of supply of HIV medicines to a homecare model was associated with any change in adherence and patient outcomes. We conducted a retrospective analysis of medical records of 100 patients who received supplies from a clinic-based hospital HIV pharmacy and 100 patients who were started on home delivery over a three-month period and were followed up over six months. Data on patient demographics, type of HIV drug regimen, HIV viral load, CD4% and adherence status were analysed. The mode of delivery had no significant effect on CD4% (p > 0.05), HIV viral load status (p > 0.05) or adherence status (p > 0.05). There was a significant increase in CD4% over time for both groups (p < 0.01). This study suggests that expanding home delivery as a model of care in London HIV clinics is safe and does not affect adherence and patient outcomes as indicated by HIV viral load and CD4%.
