PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Joshua D Bamberger

Publications and source records attributed to Joshua D Bamberger.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Public health care utilization in a cohort of homeless adult applicants to a supportive housing program.

Supportive housing is subsidized housing with on-site or closely linked services for chronically homeless persons. Most literature describing the effects of supportive housing on health service utilization does not describe use across multiple domains of services. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 249 applicants to a supportive housing program; 114 (45.7%) were housed in the program. We describe the pattern of service use across multiple domains (housing, physical health care, mental health care, substance abuse treatment). We examine whether enrollment in supportive housing was associated with decreased use of acute health services (emergency department (ED) and inpatient medical hospitalizations) and increased use of ambulatory services (ambulatory medical and generalist care, mental health, and substance abuse treatment) as compared to those eligible but not enrolled. Participants in both groups exhibited high rates of service utilization. We did not find a difference in change in utilization patterns between the two groups [those that received housing (intervention) and those that applied, were eligible, but did not establish residency (usual care group)] comparing the two years prior to the intervention to the two years after. The finding of high rates of maintenance of housing is, in itself, noteworthy. The consistently high use of services across multiple domains and across multiple years speaks to the level of infirmity of this population and the costs of caring for its members.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Seroconversion following nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis against HIV.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) against infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) following occupational exposures has prompted the use of PEP after nonoccupational exposures. There are, however, important differences between occupational and nonoccupational exposures, and the effectiveness of PEP following nonoccupational exposure is unknown. We sought to describe the occurrence and circumstances of HIV seroconversion following nonoccupational PEP. METHODS: HIV uninfected individuals reporting potential sexual or injection drug use exposures to HIV in the preceding 72 h received a 28-day regimen of antiretroviral therapy and counseling in a nonrandomized trial. The level of HIV antibody was measured 12 weeks after PEP initiation. RESULTS: Of 877 exposed subjects, 702 were evaluable 12 weeks after exposure. Seroconversion was detected in 7 subjects (1%; 95% confidence interval, 0.4%-2%). Three seroconverters reported having no exposures after PEP initiation and, thus, probably represent evidence of chemoprophylactic failure. In the other 4 subjects, additional exposures to HIV after PEP initiation or detection of HIV RNA in plasma specimens obtained at baseline precluded determination of the source of seroconversion. No exposure source was available to assess genetic concordance with the seroconverter's virus. CONCLUSIONS: As for occupational exposure, PEP is not completely effective in preventing HIV infection following nonoccupational exposure. Therefore, primary prevention remains essential. In contrast to the occupational setting, the potential source of exposure is rarely available for testing in the nonoccupational setting, and exposures are often not isolated. Thus, it is often impossible to determine whether seroconversion resulted from failure of PEP or from other exposures, posing difficulties for future comparative studies seeking to evaluate the effectiveness of PEP.

Anti-HIV Agents↗
PubMed2004

HIV RNA testing in the context of nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: The specificity and positive predictive value of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA assays have not been evaluated in the setting of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). METHODS: Plasma from subjects enrolled in a nonoccupational PEP study was tested with 2 branched-chain DNA (bDNA) assays, 2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays, and a transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) assay. Assay specificity and positive predictive value were determined for subjects who remained negative for HIV antibody for >or=3 months. RESULTS: In 329 subjects examined, the lowest specificities (90.1%-93.7%) were seen for bDNA testing performed in real time. The highest specificities were seen with batched bDNA version 3.0 (99.1%), standard PCR (99.4%), ultrasensitive PCR (100%), and TMA (99.6%) testing. Only the 2 assays with the highest specificities had positive predictive values >40%. For the bDNA assays, increasing the cutoff point at which a test is called positive (e.g., from 50 copies/mL to 500 copies/mL for version 3.0) increased both specificity and positive predictive values to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The positive predictive value of HIV RNA assays in individuals presenting for PEP is unacceptably low for bDNA-based testing and possibly acceptable for PCR- and TMA-based testing. Routine use of HIV RNA assays in such individuals is not recommended.

Anti-HIV Agents↗
PubMed2004

Use of postexposure prophylaxis against HIV infection following sexual exposure does not lead to increases in high-risk behavior.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) following occupational exposure to HIV has prompted advocacy for PEP following sexual or drug-use exposures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the concern that the availability of PEP for sexual or drug-use exposures might result in behavioral disinhibition. DESIGN: Non-randomized trial of 397 adults with high-risk sexual or drug-use exposures within the prior 72 h. INTERVENTIONS: Antiretroviral medication for 4 weeks and five counseling sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Participants were followed for 12 months for repeat request for PEP and for changes compared with pre-enrollment in overall high-risk behavior and the acquisition of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and HIV. RESULTS: After 12 months following receipt of PEP, the majority of participants (83%) did not request a repeat course of PEP. At 12 months after exposure, 73% of participants reported a decrease compared with baseline in the number of times they had performed high-risk sexual acts; 13% reported no change, and 14% had an increase. Most participants (85%) had no change in the incidence of STD; 8.5% had a decrease and 6.8% an increase. Three homosexual men seroconverted for HIV (none associated with the presenting exposure) for a rate of 1.2/100 person-year, equivalent to rates in San Francisco among all homosexual men. CONCLUSIONS: After receipt of PEP consisting of antiretroviral medication and behavioral counseling following a potential sexual exposure to HIV, most individuals do not increase high-risk behavior. Coupled with prior safety and feasibility data, this lack of behavioral disinhibition suggests that use of PEP should be routinely considered following high-risk sexual exposures.

Adult↗