Search

Background Lesotho adopted the test-and-treat approach for HIV treatment in June 2016, which increased antiretroviral treatment (ART) clinic volume. We evaluated community-based vs. facility-based differentiated models of multimonth dispensing of ART among stable HIV-infected adults in Lesotho. Methods Thirty facilities were randomized to 3 arms, facility 3-monthly ART (3MF) (control), community ART groups (3MC), and 6-monthly community distribution points (6MCD). We estimated risk differences (RDs) between arms using population-averaged generalized estimating equations, controlling for baseline imbalances and specifying for clustering. The primary outcome was retention in ART care by intention-to-treat and virologic suppression as a secondary outcome (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03438370). Results A total of 5,336 participants were enrolled, with 1898, 1558, and 1880 in 3MF, 3MC, and 6MCD, respectively. Retention in ART care was not different across arms and achieved the prespecified noninferiority limit (-3.25%) between 3MC vs. 3MF (control); 6MCD vs. 3MF; and 6MCD vs. 3MC, adjusted RD = -0.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): -1.6% to 1.5%], adjusted RD = -1.3% (95% CI: -3.0% to 0.5%), and adjusted RD = -1.2% (95% CI: -2.9% to 0.5%), respectively. After 12 months, 98.6% (n = 1503), 98.1% (n = 1126), and 98.3% (n = 1285) were virally load (VL) suppressed in 3MF, 3MC, and 6MCD, respectively. There were no differences in VL between 3MC vs. control and 6MCD vs. control, risk ratio (RR) = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.01) and RR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.01), respectively. Conclusions There were no differences in retention and VL suppression for stable HIV-infected participants receiving multimonth dispensing of ART within community-based differentiated models when compared with the facility-based standard-of-care model.

Access to hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing and treatment is limited in Myanmar. We assessed an integrated HIV and viral hepatitis testing and HCV treatment strategy. Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) ± weight‐based ribavirin for 12 weeks was provided at three treatment sites in Myanmar and sustained virologic response (SVR) assessed at 12 weeks after treatment. Participants co‐infected with HBV were treated concurrently with tenofovir. Cost estimates in 2018 USD were made at Yangon and Mandalay using standard micro‐costing methods. 803 participants initiated SOF/VEL; 4.8% were lost to follow‐up. SVR was achieved in 680/803 (84.6%) by intention‐to‐treat analysis. SVR amongst people who inject drugs (PWID) was 79.7% (381/497), but 92.5% among PWID on opioid substitution therapy (OST) (74/80), and 97.4% among non‐PWID (298/306). Utilizing data from 492 participants, of whom 93% achieved SVR, the estimated average cost of treatment per patient initiated was $1030 (of which 54% were medication costs), with a production cost per successful outcome (SVR) of $1109 and real‐world estimate of $1250. High SVR rates were achieved for non‐PWID and PWID on OST. However, the estimated average cost of the intervention (under the assumption of no genotype testing and reduced real‐world effectiveness) of $1250/patient is unaffordable for a national elimination strategy. Reductions in the cost of antivirals and linkage to social and behavioural health services including substance use disorder treatment to increase retention and adherence to treatment are critical to HCV elimination in this population.

BackgroundDirect-acting antivirals (DAAs) are highly effective in achieving sustained virologic response among those with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Quality of life (QOL) benefits for an HCV-infected population with high numbers of people who inject drugs and people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Eastern Europe have not been explored. We estimated such benefits for Ukraine.MethodsUsing data from a demonstration study of 12-week DAA conducted in Kyiv, we compared self-reported QOL as captured with the MOS-SF20 at study entry and 12 weeks after treatment completion (week 24). We calculated domain scores for health perception, physical, role and social functioning, mental health and pain to at entry and week 24, stratified by HIV status.ResultsAmong the 857 patients included for the final analysis, health perception was the domain that showed the largest change, with an improvement of 85.7% between entry and week 24. The improvement was larger among those who were HIV negative (104.4%) compared to those living with HIV (69.9%). Other domains that showed significant and meaningful improvements were physical functioning, which improved from 80.5 (95% CI: 78.9-82.1) at study entry to 89.4 (88.1-90.7) at 24 weeks, role functioning (64.5 [62.3-66.8] to 86.5 [84.9-88.2], social functioning (74.2 [72.1-76.2] to 84.8 [83.2-86.5] and bodily pain (70.1 [68.2-72.0] to 89.8 [88.5-91.1]). Across all domains, QOL improvements among PLHIV were more modest than among HIV-negative participants.ConclusionQOL improved substantially across all domains between study entry and week 24. Changes over the study period were smaller among PLHIV.

To demonstrate the use of a standard dose of ledipasvir (LDV) and sofosbuvir (SOF), with or without ribavirin, to treat hepatitis C and hepatitis C/HIV co-infection in Ukraine.Eligible HCV viraemic adults from two clinics in Kyiv were treated with LDV/SOF with or without weight-based ribavirin for 12 weeks. Clinical assessments were performed at screening and at week 24, and as needed; treatment was dispensed every 4 weeks. The primary outcome was sustained virologic response (SVR) 12 weeks after treatment, with analysis by intention to treat. Cost per patient was estimated in USD (2018) over the 24-week period.Of 868 patients included in the study and initiated on therapy, 482 (55.5%) were co-infected with HIV. The common genotypes were 1 (74.1%) and 3 (22%). Overall, SVR was achieved in 831 of the 868 patients (95.7%). SVR in patients with hepatitis C alone and hepatitis C/HIV co-infection was 98.4% and 93.6%, respectively. Adverse events were infrequent and usually mild. Using generic medication, cost per patient was estimated at US$680.A standard dose of LDV and SOF, with ribavirin as per protocol, resulted in good outcomes for patients with both hepatitis C alone and co-infected with hepatitis C/HIV. Program costs in Ukraine were modest using generic medication.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic reached the African continent in less than three months from when the first cases were reported from mainland China. As COVID-19 preparedness and response plans were rapidly instituted across sub-Saharan Africa, many governments and donor organizations braced themselves for the unknown impact the COVID-19 pandemic would have in under-resourced settings with high burdens of PLHIV. The potential negative impact of COVID-19 in these countries is uncertain, but is estimated to contribute both directly and indirectly to the morbidity and mortality of PLHIV, requiring countries to leverage existing HIV care systems to propel COVID-19 responses, while safeguarding PLHIV and HIV programme gains. In anticipation of COVID-19-related disruptions, PEPFAR promptly established guidance to rapidly adapt HIV programmes to maintain essential HIV services while protecting recipients of care and staff from COVID-19. This commentary reviews PEPFAR's COVID-19 technical guidance and provides country-specific examples of programme adaptions in sub-Saharan Africa. Discussion The COVID-19 pandemic may pose significant risks to the continuity of HIV services, especially in countries with high HIV prevalence and weak and over-burdened health systems. Although there is currently limited understanding of how COVID-19 affects PLHIV, it is imperative that public health systems and academic centres monitor the impact of COVID-19 on PLHIV. The general principles of the HIV programme adaptation guidance from PEPFAR prioritize protecting the gains in the HIV response while minimizing in-person home and facility visits and other direct contact when COVID-19 control measures are in effect. PEPFAR-supported clinical, laboratory, supply chain, community and data reporting systems can play an important role in mitigating the impact of COVID-19 in sub-Saharan Africa. Conclusions As community transmission of COVID-19 continues and the number of country cases rise, fragile health systems may be strained. Utilizing the adaptive, data-driven programme approaches in facilities and communities established and supported by PEPFAR provides the opportunity to strengthen the COVID-19 response while protecting the immense gains spanning HIV prevention, testing and treatment reached thus far.

The functioning of the supply chain may be a driving factor behind the development of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) drug resistance (HIVDR) in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Additionally, the effectiveness of supply chains will likely impact the scale-up of both viral-load monitoring and HIVDR testing. This article describes the complexities of global supply chains relevant for LMICs and presents early data on stock-outs and drug substitutions in several countries supported by the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Supply chain systems will need to be strengthened to minimize interruptions as new antiretroviral therapy regimens are introduced and to facilitate adoption of new laboratory technologies.

Objectives Non-communicable diseases (NCD) are a growing cause of morbidity in low-income countries including in people living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Integration of NCD and HIV services can build upon experience with chronic care models from HIV programs. We describe models of NCD and HIV integration, challenges, and lessons learned. Methods Literature review of articles on integrated NCD and HIV programs in low-income countries and key informant interviews with leaders of identified integrated NCD and HIV programs. Information was synthesized to identify models of NCD and HIV service delivery integration. Results Three models of integration were identified: NCD services integrated into centers originally providing HIV care; HIV care integrated into primary health care (PHC) already offering NCD services; and simultaneous introduction of integrated HIV and NCD services. Major challenges identified included NCD supply chain, human resources, referral systems, patient education, stigma, patient records, and monitoring and evaluation. The range of HIV and NCD services varied widely within and across models. Conclusions Regardless of model of integration, leveraging experience from HIV care models and adapting existing systems and tools is a feasible method to provide efficient care and treatment for the growing numbers of patients with NCDs. Operational research should be conducted to further study how successful models of HIV and NCD integration can be expanded in scope and scaled-up by managers and policy-makers seeking to address all the chronic care needs of their patients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.