Nachega Jean B, Adetokunboh Olatunji, Uthman Olalekan A, Knowlton Amy W, Altice Frederick L, Schechter Mauro, Galárraga Omar, Geng Elvin, Peltzer Karl, Chang Larry W, Van Cutsem Gilles, Jaffar Shabbar S, Ford Nathan, Mellins Claude A, Remien Robert H, Mills Edward J
University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Stellenbosch University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Cape Town, South Africa.
Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2016 Oct;13(5):241-55. doi: 10.1007/s11904-016-0325-9.
Little is known about the effect of community versus health facility-based interventions to improve and sustain antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence, virologic suppression, and retention in care among HIV-infected individuals in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically searched four electronic databases for all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort studies in LMICs comparing community versus health facility-based interventions. Relative risks (RRs) for pre-defined adherence, treatment engagement (linkage and retention in care), and relevant clinical outcomes were pooled using random effect models. Eleven cohort studies and eleven RCTs (N = 97,657) were included. Meta-analysis of the included RCTs comparing community- versus health facility-based interventions found comparable outcomes in terms of ART adherence (RR = 1.02, 95 % CI 0.99 to 1.04), virologic suppression (RR = 1.00, 95 % CI 0.98 to 1.03), and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.93, 95 % CI 0.73 to 1.18). The result of pooled analysis from the RCTs (RR = 1.03, 95 % CI 1.01 to 1.06) and cohort studies (RR = 1.09, 95 % CI 1.03 to 1.15) found that participants assigned to community-based interventions had statistically significantly higher rates of treatment engagement. Two studies found community-based ART delivery model either cost-saving or cost-effective. Community- versus facility-based models of ART delivery resulted in at least comparable outcomes for clinically stable HIV-infected patients on treatment in LMICs and are likely to be cost-effective.
关于在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)中,基于社区与基于卫生机构的干预措施对改善和维持艾滋病毒感染者的抗逆转录病毒疗法(ART)依从性、病毒学抑制及治疗保留率的影响,目前所知甚少。我们系统检索了四个电子数据库,以查找LMICs中所有比较基于社区与基于卫生机构干预措施的随机对照试验(RCT)和队列对照研究。使用随机效应模型汇总预先定义的依从性、治疗参与度(治疗衔接和治疗保留率)及相关临床结局的相对风险(RR)。纳入了11项队列研究和11项RCT(N = 97,657)。对纳入的比较基于社区与基于卫生机构干预措施的RCT进行的荟萃分析发现,在ART依从性(RR = 1.02,95%CI 0.99至1.04)、病毒学抑制(RR = 1.00,95%CI 0.98至1.03)和全因死亡率(RR = 0.93,95%CI 0.73至1.18)方面,两者结果相当。RCT汇总分析结果(RR = 1.03,95%CI 1.01至1.06)和队列研究结果(RR = 1.09,95%CI 1.03至1.15)发现,被分配到基于社区干预措施的参与者在治疗参与率方面具有统计学显著更高的比例。两项研究发现基于社区的ART提供模式具有成本节约或成本效益。在LMICs中,基于社区与基于机构的ART提供模式在临床稳定的接受治疗的艾滋病毒感染者中产生了至少相当的结果,并且可能具有成本效益。