Rodger A.J.,University College London |
Rodger A.J.,Royal Free Hospital |
Phillips A.,University College London |
Speakman A.,University College London |
And 63 more authors.
PLoS ONE | Year: 2014
Objective: To assess if a strategy of early ART to prevent HIV transmission is acceptable to ART naïve people with HIV with high CD4 counts. Design: ASTRA is a UK multicentre, cross sectional study of 3258 HIV outpatients in 2011/12. A self-completed questionnaire collected sociodemographic, behavioral and health data, and attitudes to ART; CD4 count was recorded from clinical records. Methods: ART naïve participants with CD4 ≥350 cells/μL (n = 281) were asked to agree/disagree/undecided with the statements (i) I would want to start treatment now if this would slightly reduce my risk of getting a serious illness, and (ii) I would want to start treatment now if this would make me less infectious to a sexual partner, even if there was no benefit to my own health. Results: Participants were 85% MSM, 76% white, 11% women. Of 281 participants, 49.5% and 45.2% agreed they would start ART for reasons (i) and (ii) respectively; 62.6% agreed with either (i) or (ii); 12.5% agreed with neither; 24.9% were uncertain. Factors independently associated (p<0.1) with agreement to (i) were: lower CD4, more recent HIV diagnosis, physical symptoms, not being depressed, greater financial hardship, and with agreement to (ii) were: being heterosexual, more recent HIV diagnosis, being sexually active. Conclusions: A strategy of starting ART at high CD4 counts is likely to be acceptable to the majority of HIV-diagnosed individuals. Almost half with CD4 >350 would start ART to reduce infectiousness, even if treatment did not benefit their own health. However a significant minority would not like to start ART either for modest health benefit or to reduce infectivity. Any change in approach to ART initiation must take account of individual preferences. Transmission models of potential benefit of early ART should consider that ART uptake may be lower than that seen with low CD4 counts. © 2014 Rodger et al.
Banerjee P.,East Surrey Hospital |
Rogers B.A.,Royal Sussex County Hospital Brighton
Orthopedics | Year: 2014
Pain relief following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is challenging because early mobilization and rehabilitation are essential for a successful outcome. Postoperative pain can limit recovery, leading to reduced mobility and prolonged hospitalization. There are potential benefits of infiltrating high volumes of local anesthetics around the soft tissues of replaced hip and knee joints. The risk of systemic toxicity is minimized with diluted local anesthetic solution, which also allows a high volume to be used. One of the principal advantages is that analgesia agents are administered intraoperatively by the surgeon, thereby minimizing the need for additional invasive procedures. The authors conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether high-volume multimodal wound infiltration reduces pain and opiate intake while enhancing early rehabilitation and discharge when used in patients undergoing TKA. Only randomized controlled studies were included. Although better pain relief in the immediate postoperative period with wound infiltration is gained after TKA, there is no definite evidence that this leads to a reduction in opiate consumption, the achievement of early milestones, or a reduction in hospital stay. The roles of individual agents in achieving pain relief and the use of percutaneous wound catheter for postoperative doses are also unclear. There are few reports of complications, including falls and delayed mobilization, when femoral nerve blocks are used. Wound infiltration analgesia should be used at the preference of the surgeon and anesthetist provided regular review of their practice is undertaken to identify any untoward side effects. Further randomized trials with sufficient sample size comparing each outcome, including pain scores, opiate consumption, and length of hospital stay, should be undertaken.