Kipp Walter, Konde-Lule Joseph, Saunders L Duncan, Alibhai Arif, Houston Stan, Rubaale Tom, Senthilselvan Ambikaipakan, Okech-Ojony Joa, Kiweewa Francis
Public Health Sciences Department, School of Public Health, 13-103 Clinical Sciences Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Curr HIV Res. 2010 Mar;8(2):179-85. doi: 10.2174/157016210790442722.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment outcomes and mortality in a rural community-based ART (CBART) program with a hospital-based ART program in the same district. METHODS: The study design was a non-randomized cohort study consisting of 185 persons living with HIV (PLWHIV) in the CBART cohort and 200 PLWHIV in the hospital cohort. Eligibility for both cohorts was: being HIV-infected and eligible for ART, being treatment naïve, age 18 years or older, and being a resident of Rwimi sub-county. The intervention consisted of a community-based program which included weekly home visits to patients by trained volunteers who delivered antiretroviral drugs (ARVs), monitored and supported adherence to treatment, and identified and reported adverse reactions and other clinical symptoms. Outcome variables were compared to patients in a hospital-based cohort who received the standard care delivered to all other HIV patients in the hospital. The main outcome measures were HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL), CD4 cell count and mortality after six months of treatment. RESULTS: Successful ART treatment outcome as measured by virological suppression (VL<400 copies/ml) in the CBART cohort were similar to those in the hospital-based cohort (90.1% vs 89.3%, p=0.47). The median CD4 cell count increased significantly in both cohorts (community-based cohort 159 cells/microl vs 145 cells/microl in the hospital-based cohort). Mortality was not significantly different in both cohorts (community-based cohort 11.9%, hospital-based cohort 9.0%). CONCLUSION: The findings show that outcomes of a CBART intervention in a rural area compare favorably to outcomes of hospital-based care. If the study results are sustainable over a longer time period, this model could be considered for ART roll-out to impoverished rural/remote populations in Uganda and elsewhere.
目的:比较同一地区农村社区抗逆转录病毒治疗(CBART)项目与医院抗逆转录病毒治疗项目的治疗效果和死亡率。 方法:本研究设计为非随机队列研究,CBART队列中有185名艾滋病毒感染者(PLWHIV),医院队列中有200名PLWHIV。两个队列的入选标准为:感染艾滋病毒且符合抗逆转录病毒治疗条件、初治、年龄18岁及以上、为鲁维米次县居民。干预措施包括一个社区项目,其中包括由经过培训的志愿者每周上门探访患者,提供抗逆转录病毒药物(ARV),监测并支持治疗依从性,识别并报告不良反应及其他临床症状。将结果变量与医院队列中接受医院为所有其他艾滋病毒患者提供的标准护理的患者进行比较。主要结局指标为治疗六个月后的艾滋病毒-1 RNA病毒载量(VL)、CD4细胞计数和死亡率。 结果:CBART队列中通过病毒学抑制(VL<400拷贝/毫升)衡量的抗逆转录病毒治疗成功结果与医院队列相似(90.1%对89.3%,p = 0.47)。两个队列的CD4细胞计数中位数均显著增加(社区队列159个细胞/微升,医院队列145个细胞/微升)。两个队列的死亡率无显著差异(社区队列11.9%,医院队列9.0%)。 结论:研究结果表明,农村地区CBART干预的效果与医院护理效果相当。如果研究结果在更长时间内可持续,那么该模式可考虑用于在乌干达及其他地区向贫困农村/偏远人群推广抗逆转录病毒治疗。
Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery. 2020-7