A systematic review of the effectiveness of non- health facility based care delivery of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa measured by viral suppression, mortality and retention on ART.


Journal

BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 06 2021
Historique:
received: 04 07 2020
accepted: 12 05 2021
entrez: 11 6 2021
pubmed: 12 6 2021
medline: 2 7 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Alternative models for sustainable antiretroviral treatment (ART) delivery are necessary to meet the increasing demand to maintain population-wide ART for all people living with HIV (PLHIV) in sub-Saharan Africa. We undertook a review of published literature comparing health facility-based care (HFBC) with non-health facility based care (nHFBC) models of ART delivery in terms of health outcomes; viral suppression, loss to follow-up, retention and mortality. We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase and Global Health databases from 2010 onwards. UNAIDS reports, WHO guidelines and abstracts from conferences were reviewed. All studies measuring at least one of the following outcomes, viral load suppression, loss-to-follow-up (LTFU) and mortality were included. Data were extracted, and a descriptive analysis was performed. Risk of bias assessment was done for all studies. Pooled estimates of the risk difference (for viral suppression) and hazard ratio (for mortality) were made using random-effects meta-analysis. Of 3082 non-duplicate records, 193 were eligible for full text screening of which 21 published papers met the criteria for inclusion. The pooled risk difference of viral load suppression amongst 4 RCTs showed no evidence of a difference in viral suppression (VS) between nHFBC and HFBC with an overall estimated risk difference of 1% [95% CI -1, 4%]. The pooled hazard ratio of mortality amongst 2 RCTs and 4 observational cohort studies showed no evidence of a difference in mortality between nHFBC and HFBC with an overall estimated hazard ratio of 1.01 [95% CI 0.88, 1.16]. Fifteen studies contained data on LTFU and 13 studies on retention. Although no formal quantitative analysis was performed on these outcomes due to the very different definitions between papers, it was observed that the outcomes appeared similar between HFBC and nHFBC. Review of current literature demonstrates comparable outcomes for nHFBC compared to HFBC ART delivery programmes in terms of viral suppression, retention and mortality. CRD42018088194 .

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Alternative models for sustainable antiretroviral treatment (ART) delivery are necessary to meet the increasing demand to maintain population-wide ART for all people living with HIV (PLHIV) in sub-Saharan Africa. We undertook a review of published literature comparing health facility-based care (HFBC) with non-health facility based care (nHFBC) models of ART delivery in terms of health outcomes; viral suppression, loss to follow-up, retention and mortality.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase and Global Health databases from 2010 onwards. UNAIDS reports, WHO guidelines and abstracts from conferences were reviewed. All studies measuring at least one of the following outcomes, viral load suppression, loss-to-follow-up (LTFU) and mortality were included. Data were extracted, and a descriptive analysis was performed. Risk of bias assessment was done for all studies. Pooled estimates of the risk difference (for viral suppression) and hazard ratio (for mortality) were made using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of 3082 non-duplicate records, 193 were eligible for full text screening of which 21 published papers met the criteria for inclusion. The pooled risk difference of viral load suppression amongst 4 RCTs showed no evidence of a difference in viral suppression (VS) between nHFBC and HFBC with an overall estimated risk difference of 1% [95% CI -1, 4%]. The pooled hazard ratio of mortality amongst 2 RCTs and 4 observational cohort studies showed no evidence of a difference in mortality between nHFBC and HFBC with an overall estimated hazard ratio of 1.01 [95% CI 0.88, 1.16]. Fifteen studies contained data on LTFU and 13 studies on retention. Although no formal quantitative analysis was performed on these outcomes due to the very different definitions between papers, it was observed that the outcomes appeared similar between HFBC and nHFBC.
CONCLUSIONS
Review of current literature demonstrates comparable outcomes for nHFBC compared to HFBC ART delivery programmes in terms of viral suppression, retention and mortality.
PROSPERO NUMBER
CRD42018088194 .

Identifiants

pubmed: 34112135
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11053-8
pii: 10.1186/s12889-021-11053-8
pmc: PMC8194040
doi:

Substances chimiques

Anti-HIV Agents 0
Anti-Retroviral Agents 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1110

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R010161/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : UM1 AI068617
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : UM1 AI068619
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : UM1 AI068613
Pays : United States

Références

J Int AIDS Soc. 2009 Sep 29;12:22
pubmed: 19788755
J Int AIDS Soc. 2017 Jul 21;20(Suppl 4):21649
pubmed: 28770595
PLoS Med. 2011 Oct;8(10):e1001111
pubmed: 22039357
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 1;375(9):830-9
pubmed: 27424812
J Int AIDS Soc. 2015 May 27;18:19984
pubmed: 26022654
AIDS Res Ther. 2011 Oct 22;8:39
pubmed: 22018282
J Int AIDS Soc. 2012 Nov 19;15(2):17383
pubmed: 23199799
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 1;11(12):e0166444
pubmed: 27907084
PLoS Med. 2018 Sep 19;15(9):e1002659
pubmed: 30231024
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015 May 1;69(1):98-108
pubmed: 25942461
Trop Med Int Health. 2014 May;19(5):514-21
pubmed: 24898272
N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 27;373(9):795-807
pubmed: 26192873
Trop Med Int Health. 2014 Aug;19(8):968-77
pubmed: 24889337
J Int AIDS Soc. 2017 Jul 21;20(Suppl 4):21636
pubmed: 28770593
PLoS Med. 2011 Jul;8(7):e1001056
pubmed: 21811403
JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321(5):451-452
pubmed: 30629090
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2017 Dec;33(12):1185-1191
pubmed: 28899102
AIDS Res Ther. 2015 Nov 12;12:37
pubmed: 26566390
Syst Rev. 2019 Dec 6;8(1):314
pubmed: 31810482
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Feb 22;17(1):160
pubmed: 28228134
Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2016 Oct;13(5):241-55
pubmed: 27475643
PLoS Med. 2019 Jun 10;16(6):e1002822
pubmed: 31181056
AIDS Care. 2018 Aug;30(8):1010-1016
pubmed: 29471667
Trop Med Int Health. 2010 Jun;15 Suppl 1:1-15
pubmed: 20586956
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Jan 1;71(1):e16-23
pubmed: 26473798
J Int AIDS Soc. 2016 Jul 20;19(5 Suppl 4):20841
pubmed: 27443271
AIDS Res Treat. 2012;2012:749718
pubmed: 22577527
Lancet. 2009 Dec 19;374(9707):2080-2089
pubmed: 19939445
PLoS Med. 2019 Jul 23;16(7):e1002874
pubmed: 31335865
Hum Resour Health. 2006 Jan 26;4:1
pubmed: 16438710
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 20;9(10):e110252
pubmed: 25330087
J Int AIDS Soc. 2018 Sep;21(9):e25183
pubmed: 30225946
J Int AIDS Soc. 2019 Aug;22(8):e25393
pubmed: 31454178
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009;7(4):229-43
pubmed: 19905037
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Oct 1;73(2):e11-22
pubmed: 27454248
J Int AIDS Soc. 2016 Dec 01;19(1):21484
pubmed: 27914186
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010 Dec;55(4):483-90
pubmed: 20683336
BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2011 Nov 08;11 Suppl 2:S12
pubmed: 22166168
Hum Resour Health. 2009 May 30;7:44
pubmed: 19480710
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 11;7(8):e016800
pubmed: 28801427
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40902
pubmed: 22815862
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017 Mar 1;74(3):326-331
pubmed: 27787343
JAMA. 2016 Jul 12;316(2):171-81
pubmed: 27404185
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56088
pubmed: 23418518
Int Health. 2013 Sep;5(3):169-79
pubmed: 24030268
N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 27;373(9):808-22
pubmed: 26193126
AIDS Behav. 2019 Sep;23(Suppl 2):142-152
pubmed: 31197700
PLoS Med. 2019 May 21;16(5):e1002808
pubmed: 31112543
AIDS. 2014 Feb 20;28(4):569-76
pubmed: 24468997
Trop Med Int Health. 2012 Dec;17(12):1509-20
pubmed: 22994151
BMJ. 2020 Jan 16;368:l6890
pubmed: 31948937

Auteurs

Mohammed Limbada (M)

Zambart House, PO Box 50697, UNZA-Ridgeway Campus, Lusaka, Zambia. mohammed@zambart.org.zm.

Geiske Zijlstra (G)

Imperial College London, London, UK.

David Macleod (D)

MRC Tropical Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Helen Ayles (H)

Zambart House, PO Box 50697, UNZA-Ridgeway Campus, Lusaka, Zambia.
MRC Tropical Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Sarah Fidler (S)

Imperial College and Imperial college NIHR BRC, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH