↓ Skip to main content

Appropriateness of Cotrimoxazole Prophylactic Therapy Among HIV/AIDS Patients in Public Hospitals in Eastern Ethiopia: A Retrospective Evaluation of Clinical Practice

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Appropriateness of Cotrimoxazole Prophylactic Therapy Among HIV/AIDS Patients in Public Hospitals in Eastern Ethiopia: A Retrospective Evaluation of Clinical Practice
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00727
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mekonnen Sisay, Dida Bute, Dumessa Edessa, Getnet Mengistu, Firehiwot Amare, Tigist Gashaw, Temesgen Bihonegn

Abstract

Background: Cotrimoxazole prophylactic therapy (CPT) is a feasible, cost-effective, and safe way of using cotrimoxazole intervention to reduce HIV/AIDS related morbidities and mortalities associated with opportunistic infections. Despite its effectiveness in reducing the incidence of opportunistic infections, the actual drug utilization process has been shown to deviate from World Health Organization (WHO) guideline in Ethiopia. This study, therefore, aims to evaluate CPT among HIV/AIDS patients in Jugel Hospital (JH), Harar and Dilchora Referral Hospital (DRH), Dire Dawa, Eastern Ethiopia. Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted to evaluate the use of cotrimoxazole as prophylactic therapy. In this study, 556 medical records (305 in JH and 251 in DRH) of HIV/AIDS patients who had been taking CPT within September 2015-August 2016 were reviewed. Systematic random sampling was employed to obtain medical records from the sampling frame. Data were abstracted from the patient medical records using structured checklist customized from the WHO guideline. The data were entered into Epi-data 3.1 and exported to and analyzed with statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20. The finding was evaluated against the WHO guideline on the use of cotrimoxazole prophylaxis in HIV/AIDS patients. Descriptive statistics was used to present the data in tables, figures and pie chart. Results: Majority of the HIV/AIDS patients who had been taking CPT were adults (95.9%), female (61.2%), married (43.7%), Orthodox Christian (54.3%), and attended primary school (40.1%). At the initiation of CPT, most of the patients were at WHO clinical stage III (40.8%). The major comorbid illnesses identified were tuberculosis and pneumocystis-jiroveci pneumonia. Initially, majority of the patients were at CD4 count of less than 350 cells/mm3 (n = 504, 90.6%). Greater proportion of patients started CPT prior to initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART). Most of the patients took CPT for greater than 6 months. The primary reasons for premature discontinuation of CPT were CD4 greater than 350 cells/mm3, severe sulfa allergy and first trimester of pregnancy. Generally, the use of cotrimoxazole prophylaxis was consistent with the WHO guideline for indication to start (n = 519, 93.3%) and dose (n = 552, 99.28%), despite the presence of contraindication in 6.65% patients. Conclusion: In reference to the WHO guideline, the use of CPT was found to be fully appropriate in nearly two-thirds of HIV/AIDS patients. For the rest patients, inappropriate use of cotrimoxazole was observed based on the WHO criteria for initiation, discontinuation, continuation and dose with rate of discontinuation being the dominant one. Such practice may lead to adverse health outcomes including adverse drug reactions and negative treatment outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Other 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 45 52%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 48 55%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2018.
All research outputs
#20,527,576
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#10,331
of 16,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,872
of 326,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#259
of 397 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,456 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,351 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 397 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.