Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome: Pozniak A

Fisher M, Benn P, Evans B, Pozniak A, Jones M, Maclean S, Davidson O, Summerside J, Hawkins D, Anonymous00359. · Department of Genitourinary Medicine, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK. · Int J STD AIDS. · Pubmed #16464267 No free full text.

Abstract: We present the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) guidelines for post-exposure prophylaxis after sexual exposure (PEPSE) to HIV. This document includes a review of the current data to support the use of PEPSE, considers how to calculate the risks of HIV infection after a potential exposure, and provides recommendations on when PEPSE would and would not be considered. Other areas included are the possible impact on sexual behaviour, cost-effectiveness, and issues relating to service provision. Throughout the document, consideration is given to the place of PEPSE within the broader context of HIV prevention strategies and sexual health.

Pozniak A. · St Stephen's Centre, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, 369 Fulham Road, London SW10 9NH, UK. · J HIV Ther. · Pubmed #11740409 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Boffito M, Dickinson L, Hill A, Back D, Moyle G, Nelson M, Higgs C, Fletcher C, Gazzard B, Pozniak A. · PK Research Ltd., St. Stephen's Centre, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK. · J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. · Pubmed #15483467 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: In vitro synergy and complementary resistance profiles provide a strong rationale for combining fosamprenavir with saquinavir as part of a potent double-boosted protease inhibitor regimen. This study evaluated the steady-state pharmacokinetics of saquinavir 1000 mg twice daily (bid) and fosamprenavir 700 mg bid administered with 2 different doses of ritonavir (100 and 200 mg bid) in HIV-1-infected subjects. METHODS: On day 1, 12-hour pharmacokinetic profiles for saquinavir/ritonavir (1000/100 mg bid) were obtained for 18 subjects. All subjects were receiving ongoing treatment with a saquinavir/ritonavir-containing regimen. Fosamprenavir 700 mg bid was then added to the regimen, and pharmacokinetic sampling was repeated for all 3 agents at day 11. The ritonavir daily dose was then increased to 200 mg bid, and a 3rd pharmacokinetic profile was obtained at day 22. RESULTS: The coadministration of fosamprenavir 700 mg bid with saquinavir/ritonavir 1000/100 mg bid resulted in a statistically nonsignificant decrease in saquinavir concentrations (by 14, 9, and 24%, for saquinavir area under the concentration-time curve [AUC]0-12, C(max), and C(trough), respectively). This was compensated for by an increased ritonavir dose of 200 mg bid, which resulted in a statistically nonsignificant increase in saquinavir exposure compared with baseline. Amprenavir levels did not appear to be significantly influenced by coadministration of saquinavir with fosamprenavir. Fosamprenavir significantly reduced ritonavir exposure, but the increased ritonavir dose compensated for this interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that saquinavir/ritonavir/fosamprenavir was well tolerated over the study period. Saquinavir plasma concentrations were slightly lowered by the addition of fosamprenavir to the regimen. However, the addition of a further 100 mg ritonavir bid restored the small and insignificant decrease.

Beck EJ, Griffith R, Fitzpatrick R, Mandalia S, Carrier J, Conlon C, Mandel B, Ong E, Pozniak A, Tang A, Tomlinson D, Williams I. · Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College School of Medicine, (Chelsea and Westminster Hospital), London, UK. · AIDS Care. · Pubmed #10474631 No free full text.

Abstract: A self-completion satisfaction questionnaire evaluating the standard of care of HIV outpatient services was developed as part of the National Prospective Monitoring System on the Use, Cost and Outcome of HIV Service Provision in English Hospitals (NPMS). The questionnaire was designed in conjunction with service users and health care professionals, and piloted in three London and three non-London HIV clinics. In addition to testing alternative methods of administering the questionnaire, the pilot provided satisfaction scores on a variety of aspects of service provision for participating clinics. The questionnaire was completed by 548 respondents and was most effectively collected using a sealed box in the clinic waiting area. Mean satisfaction scores for the attitude and skills of staff members was 4.7 (95% CI 4.6-4.7) but satisfaction scores were significantly lower for the clinic environment with a mean of 4.1 (95% CI 4.1-4.2). Satisfaction scores did not differ significantly by gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnic group, employment status or severity of symptoms. London respondents were more satisfied with the clinic environment and seeing preferred members of staff than their non-London counterparts, however there were no other differences between clinics. The questionnaire functioned well in practice and provided meaningful and useful information for individual clinics as well as at aggregate level.