Participation in adherence clubs and on-time drug pickup among HIV-infected adults in Zambia: A matched-pair cluster randomized trial.
Journal
PLoS medicine
ISSN: 1549-1676
Titre abrégé: PLoS Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101231360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
received:
04
06
2019
accepted:
27
05
2020
entrez:
2
7
2020
pubmed:
2
7
2020
medline:
17
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Current models of HIV service delivery, with frequent facility visits, have led to facility congestion, patient and healthcare provider dissatisfaction, and suboptimal quality of services and retention in care. The Zambian urban adherence club (AC) is a health service innovation designed to improve on-time drug pickup and retention in HIV care through off-hours facility access and pharmacist-led group drug distribution. Similar models of differentiated service delivery (DSD) have shown promise in South Africa, but observational analyses of these models are prone to bias and confounding. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of ACs in Zambia using a more rigorous study design. Using a matched-pair cluster randomized study design (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02776254), 10 clinics were randomized to intervention (5 clinics) or control (5 clinics). At each clinic, between May 19 and October 27, 2016, a systematic random sample was assessed for eligibility (HIV+, age ≥ 14 years, on ART >6 months, not acutely ill, CD4 count not <200 cells/mm3) and willingness to participate in an AC. Clinical and antiretroviral drug pickup data were obtained through the existing electronic medical record. AC meeting attendance data were collected at intervention facilities prospectively through October 28, 2017. The primary outcome was time to first late drug pickup (>7 days late). Intervention effect was estimated using unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a Cox proportional hazards model to derive an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR). Medication possession ratio (MPR) and implementation outcomes (adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and fidelity) were additionally evaluated as secondary outcomes. Baseline characteristics were similar between 571 intervention and 489 control participants with respect to median age (42 versus 41 years), sex (62% versus 66% female), median time since ART initiation (4.8 versus 5.0 years), median CD4 count at study enrollment (506 versus 533 cells/mm3), and baseline retention (53% versus 55% with at least 1 late drug pickup in previous 12 months). The rate of late drug pickup was lower in intervention participants compared to control participants (aHR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15-0.45, p < 0.001). Median MPR was 100% in intervention participants compared to 96% in control participants (p < 0.001). Although 18% (683/3,734) of AC group meeting visits were missed, on-time drug pickup (within 7 days) still occurred in 51% (350/683) of these missed visits through alternate means (use of buddy pickup or early return to the facility). Qualitative evaluation suggests that the intervention was acceptable to both patients and providers. While patients embraced the convenience and patient-centeredness of the model, preference for traditional adherence counseling and need for greater human resources influenced intervention appropriateness and feasibility from the provider perspective. The main limitations of this study were the small number of clusters, lack of viral load data, and relatively short follow-up period. ACs were found to be an effective model of service delivery for reducing late ART drug pickup among HIV-infected adults in Zambia. Drug pickup outside of group meetings was relatively common and underscores the need for DSD models to be flexible and patient-centered if they are to be effective. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02776254.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Current models of HIV service delivery, with frequent facility visits, have led to facility congestion, patient and healthcare provider dissatisfaction, and suboptimal quality of services and retention in care. The Zambian urban adherence club (AC) is a health service innovation designed to improve on-time drug pickup and retention in HIV care through off-hours facility access and pharmacist-led group drug distribution. Similar models of differentiated service delivery (DSD) have shown promise in South Africa, but observational analyses of these models are prone to bias and confounding. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of ACs in Zambia using a more rigorous study design.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Using a matched-pair cluster randomized study design (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02776254), 10 clinics were randomized to intervention (5 clinics) or control (5 clinics). At each clinic, between May 19 and October 27, 2016, a systematic random sample was assessed for eligibility (HIV+, age ≥ 14 years, on ART >6 months, not acutely ill, CD4 count not <200 cells/mm3) and willingness to participate in an AC. Clinical and antiretroviral drug pickup data were obtained through the existing electronic medical record. AC meeting attendance data were collected at intervention facilities prospectively through October 28, 2017. The primary outcome was time to first late drug pickup (>7 days late). Intervention effect was estimated using unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a Cox proportional hazards model to derive an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR). Medication possession ratio (MPR) and implementation outcomes (adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and fidelity) were additionally evaluated as secondary outcomes. Baseline characteristics were similar between 571 intervention and 489 control participants with respect to median age (42 versus 41 years), sex (62% versus 66% female), median time since ART initiation (4.8 versus 5.0 years), median CD4 count at study enrollment (506 versus 533 cells/mm3), and baseline retention (53% versus 55% with at least 1 late drug pickup in previous 12 months). The rate of late drug pickup was lower in intervention participants compared to control participants (aHR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15-0.45, p < 0.001). Median MPR was 100% in intervention participants compared to 96% in control participants (p < 0.001). Although 18% (683/3,734) of AC group meeting visits were missed, on-time drug pickup (within 7 days) still occurred in 51% (350/683) of these missed visits through alternate means (use of buddy pickup or early return to the facility). Qualitative evaluation suggests that the intervention was acceptable to both patients and providers. While patients embraced the convenience and patient-centeredness of the model, preference for traditional adherence counseling and need for greater human resources influenced intervention appropriateness and feasibility from the provider perspective. The main limitations of this study were the small number of clusters, lack of viral load data, and relatively short follow-up period.
CONCLUSIONS
ACs were found to be an effective model of service delivery for reducing late ART drug pickup among HIV-infected adults in Zambia. Drug pickup outside of group meetings was relatively common and underscores the need for DSD models to be flexible and patient-centered if they are to be effective.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02776254.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32609756
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003116
pii: PMEDICINE-D-19-02010
pmc: PMC7329062
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-HIV Agents
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02776254']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1003116Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K24 AI134413
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : P30 AI027763
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: EG is a member of PLOS Medicine's editorial board.
Références
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Dec;46(12):3941-5
pubmed: 18923017
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011 Jul 1;57(3):e33-9
pubmed: 21372723
Trop Med Int Health. 2015 Apr;20(4):430-47
pubmed: 25583302
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Oct 25;3(5):e001007
pubmed: 30483408
AIDS. 2009 Nov 27;23(18):2459-66
pubmed: 19741481
Trop Med Int Health. 2015 Oct;20(10):1265-70
pubmed: 25962952
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 18;12(4):e0175534
pubmed: 28419106
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015 May 1;69(1):98-108
pubmed: 25942461
Bull World Health Organ. 2009 Mar;87(3):225-30
pubmed: 19377719
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2014 Jan;30(1):74-7
pubmed: 23924188
Hum Resour Health. 2015 Sep 10;13:76
pubmed: 26358250
J Int AIDS Soc. 2017 Jul 21;20(Suppl 4):21649
pubmed: 28770595
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 20;14(6):e0218340
pubmed: 31220116
PLoS Med. 2009 May 26;6(5):e1000065
pubmed: 19536323
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 14;13(3):e0193641
pubmed: 29538443
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Jan 1;71(1):e16-23
pubmed: 26473798
AIDS Behav. 2013 Jan;17(1):274-83
pubmed: 22610422
Global Health. 2018 Apr 25;14(1):40
pubmed: 29695268
PLoS One. 2008 Jul 30;3(7):e2783
pubmed: 18665246
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56307
pubmed: 23509605
Implement Sci. 2017 Aug 25;12(1):107
pubmed: 28841894
AIDS Care. 2010 Nov;22(11):1323-31
pubmed: 20711886
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 06;10(7):e0131541
pubmed: 26147689
AIDS Care. 2007 May;19(5):658-65
pubmed: 17505927
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015 Dec 1;70(4):386-92
pubmed: 26110445
AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2010 Jul;24(7):441-6
pubmed: 20578908
BMC Public Health. 2017 May 4;17(1):385
pubmed: 28472938
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Sep 28;67(8):1269-1277
pubmed: 29635466
AIDS. 2012 Jul 17;26(11):1415-23
pubmed: 22767342
J Int AIDS Soc. 2016 Dec 01;19(1):21484
pubmed: 27914186
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56088
pubmed: 23418518
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):65-76
pubmed: 20957426