Impact of Mass Workplace COVID-19 Rapid Testing on Health and Healthcare Resource Savings.

Background: The epidemiological situation generated by COVID-19 has cast into sharp relief the delicate balance between public health priorities and the economy, with businesses obliged to toe the line between employee health and continued production. In an effort to detect as many cases as possible, isolate contacts, cut transmission chains, and limit the spread of the virus in the workplace, mass testing strategies have been implemented in both public health and industrial contexts to minimize the risk of disruption in activity. Objective: To evaluate the economic impact of the mass workplace testing strategy as carried out by a large automotive company in Catalonia in terms of health and healthcare resource savings. Methodology: Analysis of health costs and impacts based on the estimation of the mortality and morbidity avoided because of screening, and the resulting savings in healthcare costs. Results: The economic impact of the mass workplace testing strategies (using both PCR and RAT tests) was approximately €10.44 per test performed or €5575.49 per positive detected; 38% of this figure corresponds to savings derived from better use of health resources (hospital beds, ICU beds, and follow-up of infected cases), while the remaining 62% corresponds to improved health rates due to the avoided morbidity and mortality. In scenarios with higher positivity rates and a greater impact of the infection on health and the use of health resources, these results could be up to ten times higher (€130.24 per test performed or €69,565.59 per positive detected). Conclusion: In the context of COVID-19, preventive actions carried out by the private sector to safeguard industrial production also have concomitant public benefits in the form of savings in healthcare costs. Thus, governmental bodies need to recognize the value of implementing such strategies in private settings and facilitate them through, for example, subsidies.

Assessing self-reported adherence to HIV therapy by questionnaire: the SERAD (Self-Reported Adherence) Study.

The relationship between adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and RNA-HIV viral load outcomes has been extensively shown. Although there are different procedures for assessing treatment adherence, there is no ideal method. We present the SERAD (Self-Reported Adherence) questionnaire, a qualitative and quantitative self-reported instrument designed to provide an easier adherence measurement. We also compared the questionnaire to three other methods to evaluate adherence to HAART regimens in HIV-infected patients. Two prospective, observational, longitudinal studies were developed: a single-center pilot study followed by a multicenter study. A total of 530 HIV-infected outpatients was prospectively included, 66 in the pilot study and 464 in the multicenter study. Four methods were used to study adherence to HAART regimens: the SERAD questionnaire, pill count, electronic monitoring, and plasma drug monitoring. Pearson's correlations and Bland and Altman's method were developed. The SERAD questionnaire showed good feasibility and significant validity. Adequate levels of agreement between methods were observed, particularly when adherence was high. Differences increased as adherence fell. Moreover, the questionnaire was completed correctly, the interviewers did not report uncovered aspects, and the information was collected easily. Our results suggest that the SERAD questionnaire is a feasible and useful instrument for assessing adherence to HAART regimens in HIV-infected patients, and makes it possible to obtain reliable qualitative and quantitative information related to treatment adherence.

Virological, immunological, and clinical impact of switching from protease inhibitors to nevirapine or to efavirenz in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection and long-lasting viral suppression.

Seventy-seven subjects infected with human immunodeficiency virus were randomized to switch from protease inhibitor (PI) therapy to nevirapine therapy (group A; n=26) or to efavirenz therapy (group B; n=25) or to continue PI therapy (group C; n=26). At month 12, viral suppression had been maintained in 96% of patients in group A, 92% of patients in group B, and 92% of patients in group C. A significant increase in the CD4(+) level was observed in all 3 groups. In group A, lipid profiles improved, whereas levels of gamma-glutamiltransferase and alanine aminotransferase significantly increased; 1 subject interrupted treatment because of hepatotoxicity. In group B, an increase in gamma-glutamiltransferase levels was also observed, and 3 patients interrupted treatment because of central nervous system symptoms. Two patients in group C withdrew therapy. Quality of life significantly improved for groups A and B. In patients receiving effective PI-based therapy, the replacement of the PI with either nevirapine or efavirenz is safe and virologically effective.

Interventions to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy.

Recent research has shown that very high levels of adherence are required to obtain the maximum benefit of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). This situation justifies the importance of developing efficient strategies to improve adherence to drugs against HIV. A comprehensive range of factors are the targets of the most effective interventions to improve adherence, including cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and social aspects. The authors describe three theoretical models that can help identify barriers and guide interventions. Most of the interventions are complex and may include more convenient care, provision of information, counseling, reminders, reinforcement, self-monitoring, family therapy, or additional supervision or attention. The authors suggest aspects that should be included in interventions to promote adherence based on a review of the literature and clinical experience. Limited evidence suggests that interventions to enhance adherence to antiretroviral therapy in people with HIV are most likely to be successful when they are comprehensive, longitudinal, and tailored to the person.

Quality of life, emotional status, and adherence of HIV-1-infected patients treated with efavirenz versus protease inhibitor-containing regimens.

We assessed the impact of an efavirenz-containing regimen versus a protease inhibitor-containing regimen on quality of life, emotional status, and adherence of HIV-1-infected patients. In addition, we sought to define the adverse events associated with these treatments, with a special focus on central nervous system disorders in the efavirenz treatment group. This prospective, randomized, two-arm, controlled study included 100 patients for whom initial treatment with a protease inhibitor-containing regimen failed. Patients were randomized to start treatment with two nucleoside retrotranscriptase inhibitors plus efavirenz (group 1; 51 patients) or two nucleoside retrotranscriptase inhibitors plus one or more new protease inhibitors (group 2; 49 patients). Quality of life was assessed by a five-point item adapted from the HIV questionnaire of the Medical Outcomes Study, emotional status was evaluated by the Profile of Mood State questionnaire, and patients self-reported adherence. Data were analyzed by both an as-treated method and an intention-to-treat-last observation carried forward method. Patients in group 1 reported the following findings at week 4: dizziness (66%), abnormal dreaming (48%), light-headedness (37%), and difficulty sleeping (35%). At week 24, dizziness (13%; p <.001), abnormal dreaming (18%; p =.002), light-headedness (13%; p =.01), difficulty sleeping (7%; p =.001), and nervousness (13%; p =.01) decreased in these patients. Irritability, abnormal dreaming, and nervousness persisted at week 48 in 13%, 10%, and 8% of group 1 patients, respectively. Patients in group 2 reported the following findings at week 4: light-headedness (8%), dizziness (5%), difficulty sleeping (4%), nervousness (4%), and headaches (3%). Patients in group 2 reported the following findings at week 48: difficulty sleeping (4%), nervousness (3%), headaches (3%), and light-headedness (2%). In group 1, quality of life (p <.001) and emotional status (week 48; p =.004) improved, both of which were better than those in group 2 (p =.001). Both groups maintained high levels of medication adherence, and no significant differences in the number of patients who had viral loads of <200 copies/mL at week 48 were found (78% of group 1 patients vs. 85% of group 2 patients; p = not significant). At week 48, the mean CD4 cell count +/- SD was 497 +/- 224/mm3 in group 1 and 539 +/- 298/mm3 in group 2 (p = not significant). Despite similar immunologic and virologic outcomes, a second-line efavirenz-containing regimen improved quality of life of HIV-1-infected patients compared with a second-line protease inhibitor-containing regimen. However, close follow-up of patients receiving treatment with efavirenz-based regimens is recommended, especially for those with previous emotional disturbances due to central nervous system disorders in the short term and those with persistence of a low percentage of these disorders in the long term.