Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

19% during the first half of 1996 to 68% in the first half of 1999

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PaulKing - 08 Dec 2004 00:18 GMT
Differences in Prescription of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Persist
in 1999.
A. McNaghten, D. Hanson, and M. Dworkin.
CDC, Atlanta, GA.
Background:Differences in prescription of highly active antiretroviral
therapy (HAART) by sex, race/ethnicity, and risk group have been reported.
The objective of this analysis was to determine if gaps in HAART
prescription have changed over time by characteristics of patient
population.
Methods:We analyzed data from the Adult/Adolescent Spectrum of HIV Disease
project, observing 16,989 patients in 11 US cities eligible for HAART,
from January 1996 through June 1999. Using a logistic regression model of
prescribed HAART, race and risk by sex were compared in 1996 and during
the most recent year data were available, July 1998 through June 1999, to
determine the magnitude of the gap between the two periods by race and
risk by sex. The model included CD4+
project site, race, and risk by sex.
Results:The proportion of patients prescribed HAART increased from 19%
during the first half of 1996 to 68% in the first half of 1999. During
1996, injection drug-using (IDU) males (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95%
confidence interval [CI], 0.41—0.57), IDU females (OR, 0.46; 95% CI,
0.38—0.56), heterosexual males (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54—1.00) and
heterosexual females (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64—0.88) were less likely to
receive HAART than men who have sex with men (MSM). Blacks (OR, 0.48; 95%
CI, 0.43—0.53), Hispanics (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66—0.87), and Native
Americans (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22—0.77) were less likely to receive HAART
than whites. During July 1998 to June 1999, only IDU males (OR, 0.69; 95%
CI, 0.60—0.81) and IDU females (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50—0.71) were less
likely to receive HAART than MSM, and blacks (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74—
0.92) were less likely than whites.
Conclusions:We found an increasing proportion of eligible patients
prescribed HAART from 1996 to 1999. Although we lacked insurance data
during this period, increased drug assistance programs may have
contributed to the increased proportion prescribed HAART. However, in
1999, blacks were less likely than whites, and IDUs were less likely than
MSM, to be prescribed HAART. Differences between individual racial/ethnic
groups and risk groups by sex changed over time among all groups except
IDUs. Continued monitoring of differences in HAART prescription by gender,
race/ethnicity, risk behaviors and other factors is needed to improve
efforts to identify populations needing assistance in receiving care and
treatment.
© 8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections

SO  MUCH FOR HAART BEING THE REASON FOR THE DECLINE IN MORTALITIES WHICH
STARTED IN 1992
PaulKing - 08 Dec 2004 00:34 GMT
This is the EXACT 19% figure I quoted which GM Carter accused be of 'making
up'.

So once again GM Carter is proved to be both wrong and a lier.

Hardly news.
GMCarter - 08 Dec 2004 12:28 GMT
LOL. What the f.ck is that supposed to mean? No context. This, that,
19 here and 68 there....

You're such a f.cking jerk, Paul. Free love is a great idea but god
help anyone dumb enough to boff an a.shole like you.

>This is the EXACT 19% figure I quoted which GM Carter accused be of 'making
>up'.
>
>So once again GM Carter is proved to be both wrong and a lier.
>
>Hardly news.
PaulKing - 08 Dec 2004 22:55 GMT
f.ck you puritan swine.
Gary Stein - 08 Dec 2004 03:06 GMT
This study in no manner makes the claim that the numbers they found are in
anyway representative of HAART use in general for the HIV infected
population of the US at large. It clearly states that the sample consisted
of 16,989 patients in 11 US cities who were eligible for HAART.

The object of the study was not to determine HAART use in HIV patients but
rather to see if there were differences in HAART use between subgroups of
HIV positive patients they concluded the following ..."However, in 1999,
blacks were less likely than whites, and IDUs were less likely than  MSM, to
be prescribed HAART. Differences between individual racial/ethnic groups and
risk groups by sex changed over time among all groups except IDUs. Continued
monitoring of differences in HAART prescription by gender, race/ethnicity,
risk behaviors and other factors is needed to improve efforts to identify
populations needing assistance in receiving care and treatment." that was
the purpose of the study."

Your attempt to assert that this study proves on 19% of HIV patients were
undergoing HAART treatment in the first half of 1996 is not supported by
this study nor can you make that assumption from the data supplied in the
abstract of the study that you posted.

Gary Stein

> Differences in Prescription of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy
> Persist
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> SO  MUCH FOR HAART BEING THE REASON FOR THE DECLINE IN MORTALITIES WHICH
> STARTED IN 1992
PaulKing - 08 Dec 2004 22:56 GMT
11 cities. An exception? Give us a break.

You are grasping at straws.
David Canzi -- non-mailable address - 08 Dec 2004 06:19 GMT
In 1994, according to the graph on page one of
<http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/2002SurveillanceReport.pdf>
about 200,000 people were living with AIDS, and about 50,000 died.
That's about 25%.  Giving drugs that work to "only" 19% of a
population like that, if it's the right 19%, makes a big difference
in mortality.

Signature

David Canzi

PaulKing - 08 Dec 2004 22:57 GMT
Right!

You guys say anything rather than admit the truth.

11% is 11%. End of story.
David Canzi -- non-mailable address - 10 Dec 2004 06:05 GMT
>Right!
>
>You guys say anything rather than admit the truth.
>
>11% is 11%. End of story.

The figure we were discussing was 19%, and seen in the title of this
thread, in my article, and the article I was responding to which *you*
posted, weasel.

Signature

David Canzi

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.