Suchergebnisse

With the scale-up of antiretroviral treatment, many health facilities in low- and middle-income countries have implemented innovative practices targeted at overcoming operational challenges and delivering efficient quality HIV services. However, many of these practices remain largely unexplored as a means to better reach the global 90-90-90 targets. SETTING: A study was conducted on selected facilities in districts of country programs supported by The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The aims of the study were to understand how facilities seek to improve the delivery and uptake of HIV services and to examine what innovative practices might be contributing to their success. METHODS: The study used a qualitative approach through observations, document reviews, and semistructured interviews with site management and clinical staff to identify service delivery innovations in 30 health facilities in Kenya and Uganda. RESULTS: Eleven innovative practices were observed along the HIV care cascade. These practices led to improvements in the quality of testing, treatment, and retention across the facilities. Effective human resource and data management processes also enabled the implementation of these innovative practices. CONCLUSIONS: Many facilities use innovative practices along the HIV care cascade to address bottlenecks and challenges. These have the potential to improve the quality and efficiency of service delivery and support the attainment of the 90-90-90 treatment targets. Replicating these practices would require further implementation research and a mind shift of donors, governments, and implementers from a metric of coverage to a stronger focus on efficiency and impact.

AbstractIntroductionThe unexpected identification of a neural tube defect (NTD) safety signal with preconception dolutegravir (DTG) exposure in the Botswana Tsepamo birth outcomes study brought into sharp focus the need for reliable data on use of new antiretrovirals in pregnancy, improved pharmacovigilance systems to evaluate safety of new drugs being introduced into populations including women of reproductive potential, and balanced risk‐benefit messaging when a safety signal is identified.DiscussionThe Tsepamo study NTD safety signal and accompanying regulatory responses led to uncertainty about the most appropriate approach to DTG use among women of reproductive potential, affecting global DTG roll‐out plans, and limiting DTG use in adolescent girls and women. It also revealed a tension between a public health approach to antiretroviral treatment (ART) and individual choice, and highlighted difficulties interpreting and messaging an unexpected safety signal with uncertainty about risk. This difficulty was compounded by the lack of high‐quality data on pregnancy outcomes from women receiving ART outside the Tsepamo surveillance sites and countries other than Botswana, resulting in a prolonged period of uncertainty while data on additional exposures are evaluated to refute or confirm the initial safety signal. We discuss principles for evaluating and introducing new drugs in the general population that would ensure collection of appropriate data to inform drug safety in adolescent girls and women of reproductive potential and minimize confusion about drug use in this population when a safety signal is identified.ConclusionsThe response to a signal suggesting a possible safety risk for a drug used in pregnancy or among women who may become pregnant needs to be rapid and comprehensive. It requires the existence of appropriately designed surveillance systems with broad population coverage; data analyses that examine risk‐benefit trade‐offs in a variety of contexts; guidance to transform this risk‐benefit balance into effective and agreed‐upon policy; involvement of the affected community and other key stakeholders; and a communication plan for all levels of knowledge and complexity. Implementation of this proposed framework for responding to safety signals is needed to ensure that any drug used in pregnancy can be rapidly and appropriately evaluated should a serious safety alert arise.

AbstractIntroductionThe World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendation of "Treat All" has accelerated the call for differentiated antiretroviral therapy (ART) delivery, a method of care that efficiently uses limited resources to increase access to HIV treatment. WHO has further recommended that stable individuals on ART receive refills every 3 to 6 months and attend clinical visits every 3 to 6 months. However, there is not yet consensus on how to ensure that the quality of services is maintained as countries strive to meet these standards. This commentary responds to this gap by defining a pragmatic approach to the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the scale up of differentiated ART delivery for global and national stakeholders.DiscussionProgramme managers need to demonstrate that the scale up of differentiated ART delivery is achieving the desired effectiveness and efficiency outcomes to justify continued support by national and global stakeholders. To achieve this goal, the two existing global WHO HIV treatment indicators of ART retention and viral suppression should be augmented with two broad aggregate measures. The addition of indicators measuring the frequency of (1) clinical and (2) refill visits by PLHIV per year will allow evaluation of the pace of scale up while monitoring its overall effect on the quality and efficiency of services. The combination of these four routinely collected aggregate indicators will also facilitate the comparison of outcomes among facilities, regions or countries implementing different models of ART delivery. Enhanced monitoring or additional assessments will be required to answer other critical questions on the process of implementation, acceptability, effectiveness and efficiency.ConclusionsThese proposed outcomes are useful markers for the effectiveness and efficiency of the health system's attempts to deliver quality treatment to those who need it—and still reserve as much of the available resource pool as possible for other key elements of the HIV response.

AbstractIntroductionAs prevalence of undiagnosed HIV declines, it is unclear whether testing programmes will be cost‐effective. To guide their HIV testing programmes, countries require appropriate metrics that can be measured. The cost‐per‐diagnosis is potentially a useful metric.MethodsWe simulated a series of setting‐scenarios for adult HIV epidemics and ART programmes typical of settings in southern Africa using an individual‐based model and projected forward from 2018 under two policies: (i) a minimum package of "core" testing (i.e. testing in pregnant women, for diagnosis of symptoms, in sex workers, and in men coming forward for circumcision) is conducted, and (ii) core‐testing as above plus additional testing beyond this ("additional‐testing"), for which we specify different rates of testing and various degrees to which those with HIV are more likely to test than those without HIV. We also considered a plausible range of unit test costs. The aim was to assess the relationship between cost‐per‐diagnosis and the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the additional‐testing policy. The discount rate used in the base case was 3% per annum (costs in 2018 U.S. dollars).ResultsThere was a strong graded relationship between the cost‐per‐diagnosis and the ICER. Overall, the ICER was below $500 per‐DALY‐averted (the cost‐effectiveness threshold used in primary analysis) so long as the cost‐per‐diagnosis was below $315. This threshold cost‐per‐diagnosis was similar according to epidemic and programmatic features including the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV, the HIV incidence and a measure of HIV programme quality (the proportion of HIV diagnosed people having a viral load <1000 copies/mL). However, restricting to women, additional‐testing did not appear cost‐effective even at a cost‐per‐diagnosis of below $50, while restricting to men additional‐testing was cost‐effective up to a cost‐per‐diagnosis of $585. The threshold cost per diagnosis for testing in men to be cost‐effective fell to $256 when the cost‐effectiveness threshold was $300 instead of $500, and to $81 when considering a discount rate of 10% per annum.ConclusionsFor testing programmes in low‐income settings in southern African there is an extremely strong relationship between the cost‐per‐diagnosis and the cost‐per‐DALY averted, indicating that the cost‐per‐diagnosis can be used to monitor the cost‐effectiveness of testing programmes.