Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Clinical Medicine, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Trop Med Int Health. 2018 Dec;23(12):1314-1325. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13152. Epub 2018 Oct 24.
As loss from HIV care is an ongoing challenge globally, interventions are needed for patients who don't achieve or maintain ART stability. The 2015 South African National Adherence Guidelines (AGL) for Chronic Diseases include two interventions targeted at unstable patients: early tracing of patients who miss visits (TRIC) and enhanced adherence counselling (EAC).
As part of a cluster-randomised evaluation at 12 intervention and 12 control clinics in four provinces, intervention sites implemented the AGL interventions, while control sites retained standard care. We report on outcomes of EAC for patients with an elevated viral load (>400 copies/ml) and for TRIC patients who missed a visit by >5 days. We estimated risk differences (RD) of 3 and 12-month viral resuppression (<400 copies/ml) and 12-month retention with cluster adjustment using generalised estimating equations and controlled for imbalances using difference-in-differences compared to all eligible in 2015, prior to intervention roll-out.
For EAC, we had 358 intervention and 505 control site patients (61% female, median ART initiation CD4 count 154 cells/μl). We found no difference between arms in 3-month resuppression (RD: -1.7%; 95%CI: -4.3% to 0.9%), but <20% of patients had a repeat viral load within 3 months (19.8% intervention, 13.5% control). Including the entire clinic population eligible for EAC with a repeat viral load at all evaluation sites (n = 934), intervention sites showed a small increase in 3-month resuppression (28% vs. 25%, RD 3.0%; 95%CI: -2.7% to 8.8%). Adjusting for baseline differences increased the RD to 8.1% (95% CI: -0.1% to 17.2%). However, we found no differences in 12-month suppression (RD: 1.5%; 95% CI: -14.1% to 17.1% but suppression was low overall at 40%) or retention (RD: 2.8%; 95% CI: -7.5% to 13.2%). For TRIC, we enrolled 155 at intervention sites and 248 at control sites (44% >40 years, 67% female, median CD4 count 212 cells/μl). We found no difference between groups in return to care by 12 months (RD: -6.8%; 95% CI: -17.7% to 4.8%). During the study period, control sites continued to use tracing within standard care, however, potentially masking intervention effects.
Enhanced adherence counselling showed no benefit over 12 months. Implementation of the tracing intervention under the new guidelines was similar to the standard of care. Interventions that aim to return unstable patients to care should incorporate active monitoring to determine if the interventions are effective.
由于艾滋病毒护理的损失是一个持续存在的挑战,因此需要为未达到或维持抗逆转录病毒治疗稳定的患者提供干预措施。2015 年南非慢性疾病国家依从性指南(AGL)包括针对不稳定患者的两项干预措施:早期追踪错过就诊的患者(TRIC)和强化依从性咨询(EAC)。
作为在四个省的 12 个干预和 12 个对照诊所的一项集群随机评估的一部分,干预点实施了 AGL 干预措施,而对照点保留了标准护理。我们报告了针对病毒载量升高(>400 拷贝/ml)的患者的 EAC 结果,以及对错过就诊超过 5 天的 TRIC 患者的结果。我们使用广义估计方程对集群进行了调整,并使用差异中的差异进行了控制,以估计 3 个月和 12 个月病毒抑制(<400 拷贝/ml)的风险差异(RD)和 12 个月保留率,所有符合条件的患者在 2015 年(在干预措施推出之前)均接受了评估。
对于 EAC,我们有 358 名干预组和 505 名对照组患者(61%为女性,中位抗逆转录病毒治疗开始时 CD4 计数为 154 个/μl)。我们发现两组在 3 个月的病毒抑制率方面没有差异(RD:-1.7%;95%CI:-4.3%至 0.9%),但不到 20%的患者在 3 个月内重复了病毒载量检测(19.8%的干预组,13.5%的对照组)。包括在所有评估点都进行了 EAC 且重复了病毒载量检测的整个诊所人群(n=934),干预组在 3 个月的病毒抑制率略有增加(28%与 25%,RD 3.0%;95%CI:-2.7%至 8.8%)。调整基线差异后,RD 增加到 8.1%(95%CI:-0.1%至 17.2%)。然而,我们发现 12 个月的病毒抑制率(RD:1.5%;95%CI:-14.1%至 17.1%,但总体抑制率较低,为 40%)或保留率(RD:2.8%;95%CI:-7.5%至 13.2%)均无差异。对于 TRIC,我们在干预点招募了 155 名患者,在对照组招募了 248 名患者(44%年龄超过 40 岁,67%为女性,中位 CD4 计数为 212 个/μl)。我们发现两组在 12 个月内返回治疗的比例没有差异(RD:-6.8%;95%CI:-17.7%至 4.8%)。在研究期间,对照组继续在标准护理中使用追踪,但这可能掩盖了干预措施的效果。
强化依从性咨询在 12 个月内没有获益。新指南下实施的追踪干预措施与标准护理相似。旨在让不稳定患者返回治疗的干预措施应结合主动监测,以确定干预措施是否有效。