Open AccessHIV Treatment Outcomes in Rural Georgia Using Telemedicine
Author(s) -
Folake Lawal,
Moshood Omotayo,
Tae Jin Lee,
Arni S.R. Srinivasa Rao,
José Antonio Vázquez
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
open forum infectious diseases
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.546
H-Index - 35
ISSN - 2328-8957
DOI - 10.1093/ofid/ofab234
Subject(s) - medicine , economic shortage , viral load , human immunodeficiency virus (hiv) , telemedicine , specialty , mann–whitney u test , health care , family medicine , linguistics , philosophy , government (linguistics) , economics , economic growth
Background The increasing shortage of specialized health care services contributes to the ongoing HIV epidemic. Telemedicine (TM) is a potential tool to improve HIV care, but little is known about its effectiveness when compared with traditional (face-to-face [F2F]) care in rural populations. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of HIV care delivered through TM with the F2F model. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of a subset of patients with HIV who attended a TM clinic in Dublin, Georgia, and an F2F clinic in Augusta, Georgia, between May 2017 and April 2018. All TM patients were matched to F2F patients based on gender, age, and race. HIV viral load (VL) and CD4 count gain were compared using t test and Mann-Whitney U statistics. Results Three hundred eighty-five patients were included in the analyses (F2F = 200; TM = 185). The mean CD4 in the TM group was higher (643.9 cells/mm3) than that of the F2F group (596.3 cells/mm3; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in VL reduction, control, or mean VL (F2F = 416.8 cp/mL; TM = 713.4 cp/mL; P = .30). Thirty-eight of eighty-five patients with detectable VL achieved viral suppression during the study period (F2F = 24/54; TM = 14/31), with a mean change of 3.34 × 104 and –1 to 0.24 × 104, respectively (P = 1.00). Conclusions TM was associated with outcome measures comparable to F2F. Increased access to specialty HIV care through TM can facilitate HIV control in communities with limited health care access in the rural United States. Rigorous prospective evaluation of TM for HIV care effectiveness is warranted.