ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Describe the dental care pathway of people living with HIV (PLHIV) and their oral pathologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A monocentric cross-sectional study involving adult PLHIVs followed (October 2021/April 2022) in our department. Socio-demographic and medical data, course of dental care, and presence of pathologies of the oral mucosa were recorded. RESULTS: 112 PLHIV (71% men, 54 ± 14 years) were included. Of the 112, 96% had already consulted a dentist, and 78% had a referring dentist; 73% had disclosed their seropositivity; for 84%, the visit proceeded normally, 7% refused treatment; for 8%, the dentist was not comfortable, and for 4% the dentist's attitude became negative; 21% of the PLHIV had already encountered difficulties in finding a dentist including 37% because of their viral status. Among the oral pathologies listed, 23 lesions were identified: 15 (65%) were unrelated to HIV, 4 (17%) were classified stages B/C (1 Kaposi's sarcoma, 1 oral villous leukoplakia, 2 chronic candidiasis), and 4 (17%) were lesions with evolution specifically due to HIV (2 inhomogeneous leukoplakias, 1 cancer, 1 verrucous papilloma). CONCLUSION: Although 78% of the PLHIV included had a referring dentist, discrimination by dentists toward PLHIV still persists (16% of the PLHIV concerned). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: 27% of participants did not feel ready to disclose their infection. The resulting lack of follow-up is also a loss of opportunity because while most of the small number of oral lesions diagnosed in this population are related to age or comorbidities, some are serious and need to be identified.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Male , Adult , Humans , Female , Cross-Sectional Studies , Mouth Mucosa , Dental Care , HospitalsABSTRACT
JUSTIFICATION: The WHO 95-95-95 targets for 2030 do not imply that people living with HIV (PLHIV) achieve a good quality of life. The current 30-day dispensing interval for antiretroviral (ART) burdens the healthcare system. Lengthening dispensing intervals could alleviate this burden as well as enhance patient well-being. OBJECTIVES: To capture perceptions on 90-day dispensing interval (90D) for ART from the perspective of PLHIV, people on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), doctors, and pharmacists. METHODS: Multi-centre observational survey led in France from 16 to 20 October 2020, among doctors agreeing to participate via regional coordinated care organisations for HIV, all PLHIV or people on PrEP consulting these outpatient-clinic doctors, and pharmacists doing ART dispensing. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 220 doctors who saw 1087 people (999 PLHIV; 88 on PrEP) and 176 pharmacists from 55 centres. Among the PLHIV, 855 (85.6%, 95% CI: 83.2%-87.7%) and among the patients on PrEP, 70 (79.5%, 95% CI: 69.6%-87.4%) stated they would be interested in 90D. All in all, patients who were more likely to endorse 90D are those who opt exclusively for hospital dispensing (OR 3.22 [1.57-6.58]) and who rotate between hospital and community pharmacy dispensing (OR 3.29 [1.15-9.32]). Patients who were less likely to endorse 90-D were those who consult in a city located outside the 3 French high HIV prevalence regions (OR 0.66 [0.44-0.99]), receive 2 vs 1 pill QD regimens (OR 0.53 [0.31-0.91]), and anticipate at least one vs no limitation to 90D (OR 0.27 [0.17-0.42]). 90D was perceived as possible by 152 pharmacists (86.4%), including 8 (5%) without restriction, and 219 doctors (99.6%), including 42 (19.2%) regardless of PLHIV's immunovirologic status or social conditions (health insurance coverage, access to housing or accommodation, access to rights, resources). Comparison of the benefits and limitations of a 90-day ART dispensing interval as perceived by PLHIV and people on PrEP, doctors and pharmacists shows that doctors anticipate a higher number of benefits than people on ART and/or pharmacists, chiefly that 90D would be more convenient and create less risk of drug shortages and that patients would gain autonomy and a better quality of life. Pharmacists were found to clearly perceive the economic benefits (90D would be less expensive) but anticipate more drawbacks than doctors and the people on ART themselves: more administrative burdens, more non-dispensing if doses get lost, harder to track adherence and more drug-drug interaction issues, and more work as they shall have to warn the patient of potential risks of shortages due to the cost of the stock. CONCLUSION: A clear majority of PLHIV, people on PrEP, doctors, and pharmacists endorsed 90D of ART. Most patients thought that 90D would be a good option, whereas most pharmacists and doctors thought that eligibility for 90D dispensing should depend on immunovirologic factors and social condition criteria. Moreover, pharmacists thought it would be necessary to commit regulatory resources and a better follow-up on adherence and drug-drug interactions.
