Comparative effects of telephone versus in-office behavioral counseling to improve HIV treatment outcomes among people living with HIV in a rural setting

With the expansion of telehealth services, there is a need for evidence-based treatment adherence interventions that can be delivered remotely to people living with HIV. Evidence-based behavioral health counseling can be delivered via telephone, as well as in-office services. However, there is limited research on counseling delivery formats and their differential outcomes. The purpose of this study was to conduct a head-to-head comparison of behavioral self-regulation counseling delivered by telephone versus behavioral self-regulation counseling delivered by in-office sessions to improve HIV treatment outcomes. Patients (N = 251) deemed at risk for discontinuing care and treatment failure living in a rural area of the southeastern USA were referred by their care provider. The trial implemented a Wennberg Randomized Preferential Design to rigorously test: (a) patient preference and (b) comparative effects on patient retention in care and treatment adherence. There was a clear patient preference for telephone-delivered counseling (69%) over in-office-delivered counseling (31%) and participants who received telephone counseling completed a greater number of sessions. There were few differences between the two intervention delivery formats on clinical appointment attendance, antiretroviral adherence, and HIV viral load. Overall improvements in health outcomes were not observed across delivery formats. Telephone-delivered counseling did show somewhat greater benefit for improving depression symptoms, whereas in-office services demonstrated greater benefits for reducing alcohol use. These results encourage offering most patients the choice of telephone and in-office behavioral health counseling and suggest that more intensive interventions may be needed to improve clinical outcomes for people living with HIV who may be at risk for discontinuing care or experiencing HIV treatment failure.

Protocol of a randomized open label multicentre trial comparing continuous intrajejunal levodopa infusion with deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease - the INfusion VErsus STimulation (INVEST) study

Background

Both Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) and Continuous intrajejunal Levodopa Infusion (CLI) are effective therapies for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD). To our knowledge, no direct head-to-head comparison of DBS and CLI has been performed, whilst the costs probably differ significantly. In the INfusion VErsus STimulation (INVEST) study, costs and effectiveness of DBS and CLI are compared in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients with PD, to study whether higher costs of one of the therapies are justified by superiority of that treatment.

Methods

A prospective open label multicentre RCT is being performed, with ancillary patient preference observational arms. Patients with PD who, despite optimal pharmacological treatment, have severe response fluctuations, bradykinesia, dyskinesias, or painful dystonia are eligible for inclusion. A total of 66 patients will be randomized. There is no minimal inclusion in the patient preference arms. The primary health economic outcomes are costs per unit on the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) and costs per unit Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) at 12 months. The main clinical outcome is patient-reported quality of life measured with the PDQ-39 at 12 months. Patients will additionally be followed during 36 months after initiation of the study treatment.

Discussion

The INVEST trial directly compares the costs and effectiveness of the advanced therapies DBS and CLI.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register identifier 4753, registered November 3rd, 2014; EudraCT number 2014–001501-32, Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02480803.