Suchergebnisse

IntroductionThe cascade of HIV diagnosis, care and treatment (HIV care cascade) is increasingly used to direct and evaluate interventions to increase population antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage, a key component of treatment as prevention. The ability to compare cascades over time, sub‐population, jurisdiction or country is important. However, differences in data sources and methodology used to construct the HIV care cascade might limit its comparability and ultimately its utility. Our aim was to review systematically the different methods used to estimate and report the HIV care cascade and their comparability.MethodsA search of published and unpublished literature through March 2015 was conducted. Cascades that reported the continuum of care from diagnosis to virological suppression in a demographically definable population were included. Data sources and methods of measurement or estimation were extracted. We defined the most comparable cascade elements as those that directly measured diagnosis or care from a population‐based data set.Results and discussionsThirteen reports were included after screening 1631 records. The undiagnosed HIV‐infected population was reported in seven cascades, each of which used different data sets and methods and could not be considered to be comparable. All 13 used mandatory HIV diagnosis notification systems to measure the diagnosed population. Population‐based data sets, derived from clinical data or mandatory reporting of CD4 cell counts and viral load tests from all individuals, were used in 6 of 12 cascades reporting linkage, 6 of 13 reporting retention, 3 of 11 reporting ART and 6 of 13 cascades reporting virological suppression. Cascades with access to population‐based data sets were able to directly measure cascade elements and are therefore comparable over time, place and sub‐population. Other data sources and methods are less comparable.ConclusionsTo ensure comparability, countries wishing to accurately measure the cascade should utilize complete population‐based data sets from clinical data from elements of a centralized healthcare setting, where available, or mandatory CD4 cell count and viral load test result reporting. Additionally, virological suppression should be presented both as percentage of diagnosed and percentage of estimated total HIV‐infected population, until methods to calculate the latter have been standardized.

AbstractIntroductionHIV viral load (VL) testing is recommended by the WHO as the preferred method for monitoring patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART). However, evidence that routine VL (RVL) monitoring improves clinical outcomes is lacking.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial of RVL monitoring every six months versus a targeted VL (TVL) strategy (routine CD4 plus VL testing if clinical or immunological failure) in patients starting ART between April 2011 and April 2014 at Bach Mai Hospital in Hanoi. Six hundred and forty‐seven subjects were randomized to RVL (n = 305) or TVL monitoring (n = 342) and followed up for three years. Primary endpoints were death or WHO clinical Stage 4 events between six and thirty‐six months of ART and rate of virological suppression at three years.ResultsOverall, 37.1% of subjects were female, median age was 33.4 years (IQR: 29.5 to 38.6), and 47% had a CD4 count ≤100 cells/mm3 at time of ART initiation. Approximately 44% of study events (death, LTFU, withdrawal, or Stage 4 event) and 68% of deaths occurred within the first six months of ART. Among patients on ART at six months, death or Stage 4 event occurred in 3.6% of RVL and 3.9% of TVL (p = 0.823). Survival analysis showed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.825). Viral suppression at 36 months of ART was 97.2% in RVL and 98.9% in TVL (p = 0.206) at a threshold of 400 copies/mL and was 98.0% in RVL and 98.9% in TVL (p = 0.488) at 1000 copies/mL. In ITT analysis, 20.7% in RVL and 21.9% in TVL (p = 0.693) were unsuppressed at 1000 copies/mL.ConclusionsWe found no significant difference in rates of death or Stage 4 events and virological failure in patients with RVL monitoring compared to those monitored with a TVL strategy after three years of follow‐up. Viral suppression rates were high overall and there were few study events among patients alive and on ART after six months, limiting the study's power to detect a difference among study arms. Nonetheless, these data suggest that the choice of VL monitoring strategy may have less impact on patient outcomes compared to efforts to reduce early mortality and improve ART retention.