Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Simon Edwards Department
of Genitourinary/HIV Medicine, Caldecot Centre, King's College
Hospital, London SE5 9RS
Correspondence to: Simon Edwards
SEdwards{at}cichs-tr.nthames.nhs.uk
Concern has been raised about the quality of health care
provided to prisoners in England and Wales.
1 2
The
management of prisoners infected with HIV-1 is challenging: a high
proportion are injecting drug users, there are issues regarding
confidentiality, and administering complex antiretroviral regimens may
be difficult in prison. We reviewed our experience of providing
specialist HIV care to prisoners between October 1994 and July 1999.
In October 1994, King's College Hospital was contracted to
provide care to male prisoners with HIV-1 and sexually transmitted diseases at Wandsworth and Brixton prisons in south London. Prisoners access the service through self referral or referral by wing officers and prison healthcare workers.
Between October 1994 and July 1999 six prisoners were newly diagnosed
as positive for antibodies to HIV-1 and 121 said that they had
previously tested positive for antibodies to HIV-1. Of those 121, 75 were confirmed as positive for antibodies to HIV-1 and 25 tested
negative for antibodies to HIV-1. Fourteen of the remaining 21 who
declined to be tested gave information to support their claim,
including their HIV treatment centre. In all cases this information
proved to be false. Documented reasons for this subterfuge included the
desire for a letter pleading mitigating circumstances in court or a
request for food supplements, sedatives, or opioids.
Of 81 patients confirmed as positive for antibodies to HIV-1, 77%
(62/81) were white and 16% (13/81) were black-African. The median age
at first assessment in prison was 33 (range 23-65) years and the main
HIV risk factor recorded was injecting drug use (59%; 48/81). The
median CD4 count was 210×106/l (range
4-740×106/l) and a fifth were severely immunosuppressed
(CD4<50×106/l). Twenty one (26%) had AIDS, 41 (51%)
were coinfected with hepatitis C, and five (6%) also had chronic
hepatitis B.
Inmates were reviewed regularly to assess clinical status and adherence
to antiretroviral treatment. As expected, they were significantly more
likely to keep appointments compared with our hospital outpatient
cohort (88% (446/509) v 67% (1098/1645); P<0.001). Reasons for non-attendance included attendance at court or hospital or
a legal or social visit (35%; 22/63), transfer to another prison (25%; 16/63), failure to locate prisoner (13%; 8/63), and lack of
clinic time (6%; 4/63).
Sixteen of 34 (47%) inmates incarcerated after 1996 who were eligible
for antiretroviral treatment according to national guidelines were
taking it.3 In comparison, 76% (493/649) of outpatients were already taking or started antiretroviral treatment within six
months of their CD4 count dropping below
350×106/l.
Seven of 18 inmates who had not been taking antiretroviral treatment
started taking it in prison. The remainder were seen on only a few
occasions, which was considered insufficient to initiate and monitor
treatment (median=3; range 2-6).
Self reported adherence to antiretroviral treatment exceeded 90%,
which compares favourably with the rate reported from a London
outpatient cohort.4 Nineteen of 30 (63%) inmates reported occasions when they had not received their medication as prescribed. Reasons included confinement to cell and travel to court, hospital, or
another prison. Prescription error and drug unavailability were cited infrequently.
Fifteen (19%) inmates required at least one admission to hospital for
a median of seven days (range 3-84). The spectrum of clinical problems
included respiratory tract infections, investigation of possible
mycobacterium tuberculosis (n=12), treatment of lymphoma or Kaposi's
sarcoma (n=2), meningitis (n=2), complications from hepatitis C (n=1),
and neuropsychiatric problems (n=1).
Our HIV service is used by a high proportion of severely
immunosuppressed prisoners, who present complicated management
issues. Almost a quarter of prisoners who claimed to be positive for
HIV-1 antibody were not, although the proportion may be higher because a considerable number declined confirmatory testing. We therefore recommend that HIV status be confirmed in all prisoners.
Imprisonment presents an opportunity for inmates to have closely
supervised specialist HIV care.5 We identified several logistical problems that had an impact on patient monitoring and adherence to antiretroviral treatment. The provision of services to
prisoners who are positive for HIV-1 antibody must be regularly audited
to identify obstacles to effective healthcare delivery.
![]()
Participants, methods, and results
Top
Participants, methods, and...
Comment
References
![]()
Comment
Top
Participants, methods, and...
Comment
References
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank Natalie Ives for assisting with the statistical analysis.
Contributors: SE designed the study, data extraction and analysis, and drafted the paper and organised its final production. MTF, PH, and JB assisted in data extraction. CT conceived the idea, guided the study design, and provided support in preparing the manuscript. NH set up the service contract. PE contributed to the data interpretation and provided support in preparing the manuscript. SE, CT, MTF, PH, and JB delivered the service for which the data are based. All authors commented on drafts of this publication. CT is the guarantor.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: None.
Competing interests: None declared.
This article is part of the BMJ's
randomised controlled trial of open peer review. Documentation relating
to the editorial decision making process is available on the BMJ's
website
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. Patient or prisoner? A new strategy for health care in prisons. London: Home Office, 1996. |
| 2. | Joint Prison Service and National Health Service Executive Working Group. The future organisation and delivery of prison health care. London: Home Office, 1999. |
| 3. | BHIVA Guidelines Co-ordinating Committee. British HIV Association guidelines for antiretroviral treatment of HIV seropositive individuals. Lancet 1997; 349: 1086-1092[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 4. | Walsh JC, Dalton M, Gill J, Burgess AP, Gazzard BG. Adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). In: Program and abstracts of the 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 24-27 September, 1998; San Diego. (Abstract I-171.) |
| 5. | Dixon PS, Flannigan TP, DeBuono BA, Laurie JJ, Hoy J, Stein M, et al. Infection with the human immunodeficiency virus in prisoners: meeting the health care challenge. Am J Med 1993; 95: 629-635[CrossRef][Medline]. |
(Accepted 18 September 2000)
Read all Rapid Responses