Search

Late presentation for care is a major impediment to the prevention and effective treatment of HIV infection. Older individuals are at increased risk of late presentation, represent a growing proportion of people with late presentation, and might require interventions tailored to their age group. We provide a summary of the literature published globally between 2016-21 (reporting data from 1984-2018) and quantify the association of age with delayed presentation. Using the most common definitions of late presentation and older age from these earlier studies, we update this work with data from the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium, focusing on data from 2000-19, encompassing four continents. Finally, we consider how late presentation among older individuals might be more effectively addressed as electronic medical records become widely adopted.

IntroductionSince 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that all people living with HIV (PLHIV) initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART), irrespective of CD4+ count or clinical stage. National adoption of universal treatment has accelerated since WHO's 2015 "Treat All" recommendation; however, little is known about the translation of this guidance into practice. This study aimed to assess the status of Treat All implementation across regions, countries, and levels of the health care delivery system.MethodsBetween June and December 2017, 201/221 (91%) adult HIV treatment sites that participate in the global IeDEA research consortium completed a survey on capacity and practices related to HIV care. Located in 41 countries across seven geographic regions, sites provided information on the status and timing of site-level introduction of Treat All, as well as site-level practices related to ART initiation.ResultsAlmost all sites (93%) reported that they had begun implementing Treat All, and there were no statistically significant differences in site-level Treat All introduction by health facility type, urban/rural location, sector (public/private) or country income level. The median time between national policy adoption and site-level introduction was one month. In countries where Treat All was not yet adopted in national guidelines, 69% of sites reported initiating all patients on ART, regardless of clinical criteria, and these sites had been implementing Treat All for a median period of seven months at the time of the survey. The majority of sites (77%) reported typically initiating patients on ART within 14 days of confirming diagnosis, with 60% to 62% of sites implementing Treat All in East, Southern and West Africa reporting same-day ART initiation for most patients.ConclusionsBy mid- to late-2017, the Treat All strategy was the standard of care at almost all IeDEA sites, including rural, primary-level health facilities in low-resource settings. While further assessments of site-level capacity to provide high-quality HIV care under Treat All and to support sustained viral suppression after ART initiation are needed, the widespread introduction of Treat All at the service delivery level is a critical step towards global targets for ending the HIV epidemic as a public health threat.

IntroductionSince 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that all people living with HIV (PLHIV) initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART), irrespective of CD4+ count or clinical stage. National adoption of universal treatment has accelerated since WHO's 2015 "Treat All" recommendation; however, little is known about the translation of this guidance into practice. This study aimed to assess the status of Treat All implementation across regions, countries, and levels of the health care delivery system.MethodsBetween June and December 2017, 201/221 (91%) adult HIV treatment sites that participate in the global IeDEA research consortium completed a survey on capacity and practices related to HIV care. Located in 41 countries across seven geographic regions, sites provided information on the status and timing of site-level introduction of Treat All, as well as site-level practices related to ART initiation.ResultsAlmost all sites (93%) reported that they had begun implementing Treat All, and there were no statistically significant differences in site-level Treat All introduction by health facility type, urban/rural location, sector (public/private) or country income level. The median time between national policy adoption and site-level introduction was one month. In countries where Treat All was not yet adopted in national guidelines, 69% of sites reported initiating all patients on ART, regardless of clinical criteria, and these sites had been implementing Treat All for a median period of seven months at the time of the survey. The majority of sites (77%) reported typically initiating patients on ART within 14 days of confirming diagnosis, with 60% to 62% of sites implementing Treat All in East, Southern and West Africa reporting same-day ART initiation for most patients.ConclusionsBy mid- to late-2017, the Treat All strategy was the standard of care at almost all IeDEA sites, including rural, primary-level health facilities in low-resource settings. While further assessments of site-level capacity to provide high-quality HIV care under Treat All and to support sustained viral suppression after ART initiation are needed, the widespread introduction of Treat All at the service delivery level is a critical step towards global targets for ending the HIV epidemic as a public health threat.

Introduction"Treat All" - the treatment of all people with HIV, irrespective of disease stage or CD4 cell count - represents a paradigm shift in HIV care that has the potential to end AIDS as a public health threat. With accelerating implementation of Treat All in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), there is a need for a focused agenda and research to identify and inform strategies for promoting timely uptake of HIV treatment, retention in care, and sustained viral suppression and addressing bottlenecks impeding implementation.MethodsThe Delphi approach was used to develop consensus around research priorities for Treat All implementation in SSA. Through an iterative process (June 2017 to March 2018), a set of research priorities was collectively formulated and refined by a technical working group and shared for review, deliberation and prioritization by more than 200 researchers, implementation experts, policy/decision-makers, and HIV community representatives in East, Central, Southern and West Africa.Results and discussionThe process resulted in a list of nine research priorities for generating evidence to guide Treat All policies, implementation strategies and monitoring efforts. These priorities highlight the need for increased focus on adolescents, men, and those with mental health and substance use disorders - groups that remain underserved in SSA and for whom more effective testing, linkage and care strategies need to be identified. The priorities also reflect consensus on the need to: (1) generate accurate national and sub-national estimates of the size of key populations and describe those who remain underserved along the HIV-care continuum; (2) characterize the timeliness of HIV care and short- and long-term HIV care continuum outcomes, as well as factors influencing timely achievement of these outcomes; (3) estimate the incidence and prevalence of HIV-drug resistance and regimen switching; and (4) identify cost-effective and affordable service delivery models and strategies to optimize uptake and minimize gaps, disparities, and losses along the HIV-care continuum, particularly among underserved populations.ConclusionsReflecting consensus among a broad group of experts, researchers, policy- and decision-makers, PLWH, and other stakeholders, the resulting research priorities highlight important evidence gaps that are relevant for ministries of health, funders, normative bodies and research networks.

Introduction"Treat All" - the treatment of all people with HIV, irrespective of disease stage or CD4 cell count - represents a paradigm shift in HIV care that has the potential to end AIDS as a public health threat. With accelerating implementation of Treat All in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), there is a need for a focused agenda and research to identify and inform strategies for promoting timely uptake of HIV treatment, retention in care, and sustained viral suppression and addressing bottlenecks impeding implementation.MethodsThe Delphi approach was used to develop consensus around research priorities for Treat All implementation in SSA. Through an iterative process (June 2017 to March 2018), a set of research priorities was collectively formulated and refined by a technical working group and shared for review, deliberation and prioritization by more than 200 researchers, implementation experts, policy/decision-makers, and HIV community representatives in East, Central, Southern and West Africa.Results and discussionThe process resulted in a list of nine research priorities for generating evidence to guide Treat All policies, implementation strategies and monitoring efforts. These priorities highlight the need for increased focus on adolescents, men, and those with mental health and substance use disorders - groups that remain underserved in SSA and for whom more effective testing, linkage and care strategies need to be identified. The priorities also reflect consensus on the need to: (1) generate accurate national and sub-national estimates of the size of key populations and describe those who remain underserved along the HIV-care continuum; (2) characterize the timeliness of HIV care and short- and long-term HIV care continuum outcomes, as well as factors influencing timely achievement of these outcomes; (3) estimate the incidence and prevalence of HIV-drug resistance and regimen switching; and (4) identify cost-effective and affordable service delivery models and strategies to optimize uptake and minimize gaps, disparities, and losses along the HIV-care continuum, particularly among underserved populations.ConclusionsReflecting consensus among a broad group of experts, researchers, policy- and decision-makers, PLWH, and other stakeholders, the resulting research priorities highlight important evidence gaps that are relevant for ministries of health, funders, normative bodies and research networks.