Zheng Amy, Kileel Emma M, Brennan Alana T, Flynn David B, Rosen Sydney, Fox Matthew P
medRxiv. 2024 Dec 18:2024.12.18.24319250. doi: 10.1101/2024.12.18.24319250.
We previously published a systematic review evaluating retention in care after antiretroviral therapy treatment initiation among adults in low- and middle-income countries. We estimated retention at 36 months to be at 74% for studies published from 2008-2013. This review evaluates retention after the implementation of Universal Test and Treat in 2015.
We searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE for studies published between January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2023 and searched conference abstract repositories from AIDS, IAS, and CROI from 2015-2023. Retention for each study was estimated using 1) simple averages and 2) interpolated for missing timepoints through the last reported timepoint. All-cause attrition for all participants who initiated first-line treatment in low- and middle-income countries was estimated. Overall retention rates were estimated using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit distribution using the interpolated data.
A total of 65 studies met our criteria for inclusion for the systematic review. Most studies came from Africa with very few from Europe and Asia. Very few studies reported retention past the first 12 months following treatment initiation. Across all studies, we estimated simple average retention with no interpolation of missing timepoints to be 72.6% at 12 months, 73.2%, at 24 months, 59.8% at 36 months, and 49.4% at 48 months. Utilizing a GLMM model, we estimated retention to be 86.0% at 6 months, 80.0% at 12 months, 82.0% at 24 months, 71.0% at 36 months, and 57.0% at 48 months. In comparison, our prior review conducted in 2015, estimated retention rates to be 91.0% at 6 months, 86.0% at 12 months, 79.0% at 24 months, 75% at 36 months, and 69% at 48 months. These results generally reflect retention at the initiating facility and omit the effect of unreported transfers.
Retention in care at 36 months was estimated to be between 60% and 71%. Compared to results from our prior review, retention has stayed largely similar in the post-UTT era. Further research evaluating retention in other geographic areas (i.e., Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, and Asia) is needed.
ATB and EK was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases K01DK116929. SR was supported by INV-031690 from the Gates Foundation to Boston University. AZ was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 1F31AI179292-01A1. Research reported in this publication is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01MH121998. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
我们之前发表了一项系统评价,评估低收入和中等收入国家成年人开始抗逆转录病毒治疗后的治疗留存率。我们估计,2008年至2013年发表的研究中,36个月时的留存率为74%。本评价评估了2015年实施普遍检测与治疗后的留存率。
我们检索了PubMed、科学引文索引(ISI)Web of Science、Cochrane系统评价数据库和EMBASE,查找2017年1月1日至2023年12月31日发表的研究,并检索了2015年至2023年艾滋病大会(AIDS)、国际艾滋病学会(IAS)和逆转录病毒与机会性感染会议(CROI)的会议摘要库。使用以下两种方法估计每项研究的留存率:1)简单平均值;2)通过最后报告的时间点对缺失的时间点进行插值。估计了在低收入和中等收入国家开始一线治疗的所有参与者的全因失访情况。使用广义线性混合模型和logit分布,根据插值数据估计总体留存率。
共有65项研究符合我们纳入系统评价的标准。大多数研究来自非洲,来自欧洲和亚洲的很少。很少有研究报告治疗开始后12个月以上的留存率。在所有研究中,我们估计,未对缺失时间点进行插值的简单平均留存率在12个月时为72.6%,24个月时为73.2%,36个月时为59.8%,48个月时为49.4%。利用广义线性混合模型(GLMM),我们估计6个月时的留存率为86.0%,12个月时为80.0%,24个月时为82.0%,36个月时为71.0%,48个月时为57.0%。相比之下,我们2015年进行的先前评价估计,6个月时的留存率为91.0%,12个月时为86.0%,24个月时为79.0%,36个月时为75%,48个月时为69%。这些结果一般反映了在起始机构的留存率,未考虑未报告的转院影响。
估计36个月时的治疗留存率在60%至71%之间。与我们先前评价的结果相比,在普遍检测与治疗时代之后,留存率基本保持相似。需要进一步开展研究,评估其他地理区域(即拉丁美洲和加勒比地区、欧洲和亚洲)的留存率。
ATB和EK得到了美国国立糖尿病、消化和肾脏疾病研究所K01DK116929的支持。SR得到了盖茨基金会授予波士顿大学的INV-031690的支持。AZ得到了美国国立过敏和传染病研究所1F31AI179292-01A1的支持。本出版物中报告的研究得到了美国国立卫生研究院国立精神卫生研究所授予的R01MH121998的支持。内容完全由作者负责,不一定代表国立卫生研究院的官方观点。资助者在研究设计、数据收集和分析、出版决策或稿件准备过程中没有任何作用。