Topics

Infectious diseases

Infectious diseases Letters 4 April 2022 Open Access

Barriers to accessing HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis for Medicare‐ineligible people in Melbourne, Australia: analysis of patients attending the PrEPMe Clinic

To the Editor: People without Medicare coverage cannot access Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS)‐subsidised human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or associated clinical care. Rates of HIV infection diagnosis are disproportionately higher among overseas‐born gay and bisexual men compared with Australian‐born gay and bisexual men.1 In response, in June 2020, the Alfred Hospital and the Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory established the free PrEPMe Clinic for Medicare‐ineligible people. Data were collected using proformas after patients provided verbal consent (Alfred Health Ethics Committee approval No. 656/18). The first 100 consecutive patients were all born overseas (Box). Melbourne’s only public sexual health clinic referred 65 patients. Almost all patients were male, all patients had sex with men and reported a median of three sexual partners in 3 months at baseline; 76 patients inconsistently used condoms for anal sex. Fifty‐eight patients reported previous sexually transmissible infections (STIs); STIs were diagnosed in 12/100 patients at baseline, a rate similar to that found in Medicare‐eligible PrEP users.2 Thirty‐four patients had previously accessed HIV post‐exposure prophylaxis (PEP), and 49 patients had previously unsuccessfully attempted to obtain PrEP. The reported barriers to access mainly included costs of medical appointments and pathology, and difficulties navigating Australia’s health care system. All patients received a non‐PBS PrEP prescription. At 3‐month follow‐up, 87 patients had commenced PrEP. Local pharmacies supplied PrEP at cost price (A$40–55 per month) or free to patients with financial hardship; other patients purchased PrEP online (US$20–30 per month) or obtained free PrEP online using assistance coupons (www.pan.org.au; Box). Most patients who ordered PrEP online experienced delivery delays of 4–6 weeks, leaving them at risk of HIV infection. We report that Medicare‐ineligible gay and bisexual men and transgender women were at high risk of HIV infection, yet faced significant financial barriers to accessing PrEP. PrEP uptake has been associated with significant population‐level declines in incident HIV infection in Australia.3 Australia’s Eighth National HIV Strategy aims for virtual elimination of HIV transmissions by 2022,4 and to achieve this goal, Australia must provide universally subsidised PrEP medication and clinical services, irrespective of Medicare status.5 Medicare‐ineligible gay and bisexual men often already attend publicly funded sexual health clinics for free HIV/STI testing and treatment, as reported here. In a high income country like Australia, the additional cost of providing universally subsidised PrEP care would likely be lower than treating preventable new HIV infections, with an estimated lifetime cost of more than US$350 000 per HIV infection diagnosis.6 Box – Demographic characteristics, immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition risk, and prior efforts to obtain pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the first 100 consecutive patients to attend the PrEPMe HIV prevention clinic at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia* Values Total number of patients 100 Demographic characteristics Region of birth Asia 47 Latin America 31 Europe 14 Other 8 Age, years, median (IQR) 28 (26–31) Gender Cisgender male 96 Transgender female 4 Visa status Student visa 62 Working visa 34 Other 4 Referral sources Melbourne Sexual Health Centre 65 Word of mouth 16 Other† 13 Unknown 6 HIV risk at initial clinical assessment Sexual partners (3 months), median (IQR) 3 (1–5) Condom use for anal sex (3 months) Always 24 Mostly or sometimes 60 Never 13 Not applicable 1 Unknown 2 Previous STIs (ever) Yes 58 No 42 Previous STIs (ever, specific STIs) Gonorrhoea 35 Chlamydia 21 Syphilis 21 Other‡ 5 STIs diagnosed at baseline Chlamydia only 6 Other§ 6 Previous attempts at HIV risk reduction Previous use of PEP Yes 34 No 57 Unknown 9 Previous unsuccessful attempts to obtain PrEP Yes 49 No 46 Unknown 5 PrEP commencement by 3‐month follow‐up Commenced PrEP 87 Local pharmacy 65 Online 19 Online order did not arrive, then purchased at pharmacy 3 PrEP not commenced 6 Online order did not arrive 3 Other¶ 3 Lost to follow‐up 7 COVID‐19 = coronavirus disease 2019; IQR = interquartile range; PEP = post‐exposure prophylaxis; STIs = sexually transmissible infections. * Enrolment dates: 1 June 2020 to 26 October 2020. † Includes general practices, internet search, “PrEP Access Now” Facebook page, Alfred Hospital PEP program. ‡ Includes herpes simplex virus, Mycoplasma genitalium, hepatitis B virus. § Includes syphilis, hepatitis B virus, both chlamydia and gonorrhoea. ¶ Includes lost prescription, no sex due to COVID‐19.

Vincent J Cornelisse · Jude Armishaw · Mike Catton · Dean Murphy · Edwina J Wright

Mja2 51455
Endocrinology Letters 4 April 2022 Free

The Virtual Inpatient Diabetes Management Service: COVID‐19 brings the future to inpatient diabetes management

To the Editor: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has strained health systems in New South Wales, and hospitals have rapidly adapted to care for inpatients with COVID‐19. In the 4 weeks leading up to 9 September 2021, 9330 locally acquired cases were diagnosed in Western Sydney alone.1 The management of large numbers of COVID‐19 inpatients with diabetes has been challenging. People with diabetes are a vulnerable population who are at risk of adverse outcomes from COVID‐19, with a two‐ to threefold likelihood of death compared with people without diabetes.2 Hyperglycaemia is associated with higher risk;3 hence, good glucose management is desirable. Exacerbation of diabetes by dexamethasone therapy, used to treat patients with COVID‐19, and the development of steroid‐induced hyperglycaemia in non‐diabetic patients present further challenges. Traditional models of care relying on referrals from parent teams to an endocrinologist (or registrar), who then reviews the patient daily to chart insulin, are inefficient and impractical for this situation. We have developed a virtual inpatient diabetes management service (vIDMS) as a means for a small diabetes team to manage COVID‐19 inpatients with diabetes. The success of this model has revolved around an electronic medical record, electronic inpatient prescribing, a diabetes dashboard, and videoconferencing communications. The recording of all glucose measurements (including point of care) within the electronic medical record has enabled the systematic capture and display of hospital‐wide glucose data on a diabetes dashboard (Box). This also allows viewing and filtering by any variable in the electronic medical record, such as ward, age, biochemistry (including formal laboratory glucose and glycated haemoglobin), development of hypoglycaemia, prescribed medications (including corticosteroids), and COVID‐19 status. Therefore, COVID‐19 patients with diabetes or hyperglycaemia are easily identified. The vIDMS, comprising of a consultant, a registrar and a diabetes educator, reviewed patients with COVID‐19 and hyperglycaemia on a daily basis, using the dashboard and electronic medical record, by sharing a screen on a videoconferencing platform. Remote management was undertaken through the electronic medical record, including medication and insulin dose adjustments. Communication with ward staff and patients with COVID‐19 through the electronic medical record, or by telephone or video, was undertaken when needed, including for diabetes education. Entry into the COVID‐19 wards and usage of personal protective equipment was not required. In the 6 weeks to 5 September 2021, 112 COVID‐19 patients with diabetes were thus managed in Westmead Hospital (median age, 62 years; range, 23–91 years), with up to 40 patients reviewed per day. Necessitated by COVID‐19, the future of inpatient diabetes management is now here. With one‐quarter of patients in metropolitan hospitals having self‐reported diabetes4 but insufficient specialised diabetes staff to provide individual management, the vIDMS will become a significant part of the wider model of diabetes care for large hospitals.5 While initial and intermittent face‐to‐face contact remains valuable to build a relationship and discuss relevant issues, and careful review of medical records is necessary to understand perturbations in glucose levels (eg, fasting, missed medication), the vIDMS enables daily specialist care for large numbers of patients with diabetes by a small team. The health system needs to facilitate its wider application for the management of both COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 patients with diabetes in hospital. Box – Diabetes dashboard showing hospital‐wide glucose data for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19)

N Wah Cheung · Amanda Hor · Tien‐Ming Hng

Mja2 51456
Digestive system diseases Consensus statement summary 7 March 2022 Free

Australian consensus recommendations for the management of hepatitis B

This statement provides guidance to managing hepatitis B, recognising groups at increased risk of HBV infection and appropriate, timely screening strategies

John S Lubel · Simone I Strasser · Alexander J Thompson · Benjamin C Cowie · Jennifer MacLachlan · Nicole L Allard · Jacinta Holmes · William W Kemp · Avik Majumdar · David Iser · Jess Howell · Gail V Matthews

Mja2 51430
Infectious diseases Letters 7 February 2022 Free

An Australian case of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in an adult during the 2021 SARS‐CoV‐2 Delta outbreak

TO THE EDITOR: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS‐C) or adults (MIS‐A) is a rare but severe systemic inflammatory syndrome,1 with an epidemiological peak occurring 4–6 weeks after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) outbreaks.2 Also known as paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS‐CoV‐2, MIS‐C is the subject of active surveillance across paediatric centres.3 The peak age for the syndrome is 9 years,1 although cases have been reported in adults.4 We report, to our knowledge, the first Australian case of MIS‐A, diagnosed 2 months into the SARS‐CoV‐2 Delta outbreak in New South Wales, with 60 075 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) notifications in the period 29 June to 4 October 2021.5 A 42‐year‐old woman presented with 7 days of subjective fevers, myalgia, light‐headedness, abdominal pain, nausea, palpitations and non‐pleuritic chest pain. Presentation occurred 27 days after acute COVID‐19 pneumonitis, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction and serology testing. The acute illness was mild, requiring neither oxygen nor hospitalisation, and the patient recovered fully 72 hours before onset of this new symptom complex. She was unimmunised against SARS‐CoV‐2. The patient was febrile (38.2°C), with tachycardia (114 beats per minute) and hypotension (79/56 mmHg) but no respiratory distress. She had bilateral conjunctival injection, a widespread blanching macular rash (Box), and oedema of the hands bilaterally. There was no lymphadenopathy or oral mucosal change. Investigations revealed significant inflammation, with a raised C‐reactive protein level (119 mg/L; reference interval [RI], ≤ 4 mg/L), lymphopenia (0.5 × 109/L; RI, 1.0–4.0 × 109/L), thrombocytopenia (74 × 109/L; RI, 150‐400 × 109/L), neutrophilia (12.2 × 109/L; RI, 2.0–8.0 × 109/L), deranged liver function tests (alanine transaminase, 160 U/L; RI, 10–35 U/L), and hypoalbuminemia (20 g/L; RI, 35–50 g/L). Her D‐dimer level was raised (2.34 mg/L; RI, < 0.5 mg/L), as was her brain natriuretic peptide level (1660 ng/L; RI, ≤ 125 ng/L); troponin and creatine kinase levels were normal. Blood and urine cultures were negative, and anti‐streptolysin O and anti‐DNase B titres were not raised. No echocardiographic evidence of myocarditis was seen, and there was no coronary artery dilatation. The patient responded to two doses of intravenous immunoglobulin (2 g/kg each) following 48 hours of inotropic support (metaraminol infusion then low dose noradrenaline). Aspirin (3 mg/kg daily) was administered, as well as intravenous antibiotics for 72 hours while cultures were pending. MIS‐A was diagnosed on the basis of current case definitions,6,7 although the patient also fulfilled criteria for probable toxic shock syndrome, as described in other case series.8 Adults and adolescents with MIS‐A typically present with multisystem involvement, often incorporating myocarditis, shock and gastrointestinal features,4,9 whereas younger children present more commonly with a Kawasaki disease‐like illness.9 Given the absence of specific diagnostic markers, the overlapping phenotype with toxic shock syndrome and the poor sensitivity of cultures and serological markers for these alternative diagnoses, such differentials must be carefully considered in the early phase of illness. Nonetheless, clinicians should be aware of MIS‐C or MIS‐A in patients presenting with shock, mucocutaneous changes and/or gastrointestinal symptoms, even without preceding symptomatic SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Prompt treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin and/or steroids is essential to minimise long term morbidity from coronary artery dilatation.1 Although rare, further cases of MIS‐C and MIS‐A are anticipated following increasing COVID‐19 case notifications in NSW and Victoria. This letter was published as a peer‐reviewed Accepted Article (prior to structural editing and typesetting) on 14 October 2021. Box – Bilateral conjunctival injection (A) and diffuse blanching macular rash (B) in an adult with multisystem inflammatory syndrome

Annaleise R Howard‐Jones · Sam R Orde · Zoe Jennings

Subscribe to MJA email alerts

No spam, you can unsubscribe anytime you want.

By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Thanks for Subscribing! Tell us more

Your email updates will use your name.

Good one! Your updates are coming

Thank you for subscribing to the MJA email alerts. Receive the latest content in your inbox.