Abstract
BackgroundPeople with HIV (PWH) in suppressive antiretroviral treatment suffer from chronic inflammation-related comorbidities, mainly cardiovascular diseases. However, given the lack of specific evidence about inflammation in PWH, clinical guidelines do not provide recommendations for the management of this issue. To date, physician awareness of inflammation in PWH remains unclear. We analyzed the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) related to inflammation, particularly in the clinical management of PWH, of infectious disease specialists (IDS)/internists compared to other specialists treating inflammation directly (rheumatologists) or its cardiovascular consequences (cardiologists). MethodsA committee of IDS/internists treating PWH, cardiologists, and rheumatologists designed the KAP questionnaire. The survey was completed by 405 participants (135 physicians per specialty) stratified by Spanish geography, hospital size, and number of PWH under care (IDS/internists only). ResultsIDS/internists treating PWH scored higher than cardiologists and rheumatologists on knowledge of inflammation (5.5±1.4 out of 8 points vs. 5.2±1.3 and 4.6±1.4 points, respectively; p<0.05). Nevertheless, rheumatologists showed the most proactive attitude toward inflammation (i.e., biomarkers monitoring, anti-inflammatory drug prescription and cardiologist referral), followed by cardiologists and IDS/internists (13±3 of a total of 16 points vs. 11±3 and 10±3.3 points, respectively; p<0.05), irrespective of hospital size and years of experience. Most IDS/internists (59%) include inflammation in their therapeutic recommendations. However, in IDS/internists treating PWH, we observed a negative correlation between years of experience and concern about the clinical consequences of inflammation. ConclusionOur findings show that, compared to other specialists, infectious disease specialists/internists have high knowledge about inflammation in HIV infection, but, in the absence of scientific evidence to base their decisions on inflammatory markers, the therapeutic implications are scarce. The results support the need for more evidence on the monitoring and treatment of inflammation in PWH.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed.)
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
