Implementation and Operational Research: Impact of Nurse-Targeted Care on HIV Outcomes Among Immunocompromised Persons: A Before-After Study in Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: Improving HIV outcomes among severely immunocompromised HIV-infected persons who have increased morbidity and mortality remains an important issue in sub-Saharan Africa. We sought to evaluate the impact of targeted clinic-based nurse care on antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation and retention among severely immunocompromised HIV-infected persons. METHODS: The study included ART-naive patients with CD4 counts <100 cells per microliter registered in seven urban clinics in Kampala, Uganda. Data were retrospectively collected on patients enrolled from July to December 2011 (routine care cohort). Between July 2012 and September 2013, 1 additional nurse per clinic was hired (nurse counselor cohort) to identify new patients, expedite ART initiation, and trace those who were lost to follow-up. We compared time to ART initiation and 6-month retention in care between cohorts and used a generalized linear model to estimate the relative risk of retention. RESULTS: The study included 258 patients in the routine care cohort and 593 in the nurse counselor cohort. The proportion of patients who initiated ART increased from 190 (73.6%) in the routine care cohort to 506 (85.3%) in the nurse counselor cohort (P < 0.001). At 6 months, 62% of the routine care cohort were retained in care versus 76% in the nurse counselor cohort (P = 0.001). A 21% increase in the likelihood of retention in the nurse counselor cohort (relative risk: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.34) compared with the routine care cohort was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of targeted nurse-led care of severely immunocompromised HIV-infected patients in public outpatient health care facilities resulted in decreased time to ART initiation and increased retention.

Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis in adults, including pregnant women, with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis is used to reduce morbidity and mortality in people with HIV. We systematically reviewed three topics related to co-trimoxazole prophylaxis to update WHO guidelines: initiation, discontinuation, and dose. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, WHO Global Index Medicus, and clinical trial registries in November, 2013, for randomised controlled trials and observational studies including co-trimoxazole prophylaxis and a comparator group. Studies were eligible if they reported death, WHO clinical stage 3 or 4 events, admittance to hospital, severe bacterial infections, tuberculosis, pneumonia, diarrhoea, malaria, or treatment-limiting adverse events. Infant mortality, low birthweight, and placental malaria were additional outcomes for the comparison of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis and intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in pregnant women (IPTp). We compared a dose of 480 mg co-trimoxazole once a day with one of 960 mg co-trimoxazole once a day. We used a 10% margin for non-inferiority and equivalence analyses. We used random-effects models for all meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014007163. FINDINGS: 19 articles, published from 1995 to 2014 and including 35 328 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis reduced rates of death (hazard ratio [HR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·26-0·64) when started at CD4 counts of 350 cells per µL or lower with antiretroviral therapy (ART) worldwide. Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis started at higher than 350 cells per µL without ART reduced rates of death (0·50, 0·30-0·83) and malaria (0·25, 0·10-0·57) in Africa. Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis was non-inferior to IPTp with respect to infant mortality (risk difference [RD] -0·05, 95% CI -0·12 to 0·02), low birthweight (0·00, -0·07 to 0·07), and placental malaria (0·00, -0·10 to 0·10). Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis continuation after ART-induced recovery with CD4 counts higher than 350 cells per µL reduced admittances to hospital (HR 0·42, 95% CI 0·22-0·80), pneumonia (0·73, 0·61-0·88), malaria (0·03, 0·01-0·10), and diarrhoea (0·61, 0·48-0·78) in Africa. A dose of 480 mg co-trimoxazole prophylaxis once a day did not reduce treatment-limiting adverse events compared with 960 mg once a day (RD -0·07, 95% CI -0·52 to 0·39). INTERPRETATION: Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis should be given with ART in people with CD4 counts of 350 cells per µL or lower in low-income and middle-income countries. Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis should be provided irrespective of CD4 count in settings with a high burden of infectious diseases. Pregnant women with HIV in Africa should use co-trimoxazole rather than IPTp to prevent malaria complications in infants. Further research is needed to inform dose optimisation and co-trimoxazole use in the context of expanded ART in different epidemiological settings. FUNDING: None.

Assessment of the impact of cotrimoxazole prophylaxis on key outcomes among HIV-infected adults in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cotrimoxazole (CTX) prophylaxis is among the key interventions provided to HIV-infected individuals in resource-limited settings. We conducted a systematic review of the available evidence. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, SOCA, and African Index Medicus (AIM) were used to identify articles relevant to the CTX prophylaxis intervention from 1995 to 2014. Included articles addressed impact of CTX prophylaxis on the outcomes of mortality, morbidity, retention in care, quality of life, and/or prevention of ongoing HIV transmission. We rated the quality of evidence in individual articles and assessed the overall quality of the body of evidence, the expected impact, and the cost effectiveness (CE) for each outcome. RESULTS: Of the initial 1418 identified articles, 42 met all inclusion criteria. These included 9 randomized controlled trials, 26 observational studies, 2 systematic reviews with meta-analysis, 1 other systematic review, and 4 CE studies. The overall quality of evidence was rated as "good" and the expected impact "high" for both mortality and morbidity. The overall quality of evidence from the 4 studies addressing retention in care was rated as "poor," and the expected impact on retention was rated as "uncertain." The 4 assessed CE studies showed that provision of CTX prophylaxis is cost effective and sometimes cost saving. No studies addressed impact on quality of life or HIV transmission. CONCLUSIONS: CTX prophylaxis is a cost-effective intervention with expected high impact on morbidity and mortality reduction in HIV-infected adults in resource-limited settings. Benefits are seen in both pre-antiretroviral therapy and antiretroviral therapy populations.

Cryptococcal antigen screening and early antifungal treatment to prevent cryptococcal meningitis: a review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Screening individuals with AIDS for serum cryptococcal antigen (CrAg), followed by treatment of CrAg positives with antifungals, may prevent cryptococcal meningitis. This review examined data on CrAg screening and treatment in resource-limited settings. METHODS: We searched articles published during 2007-2014 on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CrAg screening and treatment on the outcomes of mortality, morbidity, retention in care, quality of life, and/or prevention of ongoing HIV transmission. We rated overall quality of individual articles, summarized the body of evidence, the expected impact, and cost-effectiveness for each outcome. RESULTS: We identified 2613 articles. Eight met all inclusion criteria. Five studies addressed mortality and/or morbidity outcomes; all were observational and had small sample sizes; 3 lacked a comparison group. Ratings of study quality ranged from "medium" to "weak," and the quality of the overall body of evidence for mortality and morbidity outcomes was rated as "fair." The intervention's expected impact on mortality and morbidity was rated as "moderate." The 4 cost-effectiveness studies included in the analysis showed that CrAg screening and treatment interventions are highly cost-effective. No studies addressed retention in care, quality of life, or HIV transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited, the body of evidence regarding CrAg screening and treatment suggests that the intervention may have an impact on preventing cryptococcal meningitis and death in persons with AIDS. Additional research is needed to quantify the intervention's effectiveness and identify optimal treatment dosing and implementation best practices.

Cost-effectiveness of HIV treatment in resource-poor settings--the case of Côte d'Ivoire.

BACKGROUND: As antiretroviral therapy is increasingly used in settings with limited resources, key questions about the timing of treatment and use of diagnostic tests to guide clinical decisions must be addressed. METHODS: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for a cohort of adults in Côte d'Ivoire who were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (mean age, 33 years; CD4 cell count, 331 per cubic millimeter; HIV RNA level, 5.3 log copies per milliliter). Using a computer-based simulation model that incorporates the CD4 cell count and HIV RNA level as predictors of disease progression, we compared the long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with no treatment, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis alone, antiretroviral therapy alone, and prophylaxis with antiretroviral therapy. RESULTS: Undiscounted gains in life expectancy ranged from 10.7 months with antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis initiated on the basis of clinical criteria to 45.9 months with antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis initiated on the basis of CD4 testing and clinical criteria, as compared with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis alone. The incremental cost per year of life gained was 240 dollars (in 2002 U.S. dollars) for prophylaxis alone, 620 dollars for antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis without CD4 testing, and 1,180 dollars for antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis with CD4 testing, each compared with the next least expensive strategy. None of the strategies that used antiretroviral therapy alone were as cost-effective as those that also used trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis. Life expectancy was increased by 30% with use of a second line of antiretroviral therapy after failure of the first-line regimen. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis and antiretroviral therapy, with the use of clinical criteria alone or in combination with CD4 testing to guide the timing of treatment, is an economically attractive health investment in settings with limited resources.

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis in patients with HIV/AIDS in Côte d'Ivoire: a trial-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2000, WHO/UNAIDS recommended co-trimoxazole prophylaxis for persons at early stages of HIV infection (WHO stage > or = 2) in sub-Saharan Africa. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for initiation of co-trimoxazole in Côte d'Ivoire. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis with an HIV simulation model using clinical and cost data from a randomized trial of co-trimoxazole in HIV-infected adults. METHODS: The study included HIV-infected patients in Côte d'Ivoire, with median age 33 years. Thirty-four percent were classified as WHO stage 2, 59% as stage 3, and 7% as stage 4. The mean CD4 cell count was 331 x 10(6) cells/l. The interventions were no prophylaxis, clinical criteria-based co-trimoxazole initiation (early: WHO stage > or = 2; late: WHO stage > or = 3), CD4-based co-trimoxazole initiation (< 500, < 200, < 50 x 10(6) CD4 cells/l). The outcome measures were life expectancy, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The most effective strategy, initiation of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis at WHO stage > or = 2, increased undiscounted life expectancy by 5.2 months, discounted life expectancy by 4.4 months, and lifetime costs by US dollars 60, compared with no prophylaxis. Delaying prophylaxis initiation until WHO stage >or = 3 was less costly and less effective. All CD4-based strategies were dominated. The incremental cost-effectiveness of early versus late co-trimoxazole prophylaxis initiation was US dollars 200/year of life gained. Results were stable despite wide variations in plausible assumptions about bacterial resistance and the prophylaxis efficacy on co-trimoxazole-resistant strains. CONCLUSIONS: For HIV-infected adults in Côte d'Ivoire, co-trimoxazole prophylaxis is reasonably cost-effective and most effective if initiated when WHO stage > or = 2. Early co-trimoxazole prophylaxis will prevent complications prior to antiretroviral therapy initiation and should be considered an essential component of care for early HIV in sub-Saharan Africa.

Prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus-related Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia: using simulation modeling to inform clinical guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) have experienced a dramatic decrease in Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), necessitating reassessment of clinical guidelines for prophylaxis. METHODS: A simulation model of HIV infection was used to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) for alternative CD4 cell count criteria for stopping primary PCP prophylaxis in patients with CD4 cell count increases receiving HAART and alternative agents for second-line PCP prophylaxis in those intolerant of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX). The target population was a cohort of HIV-infected patients in the United States with initial CD4 cell counts of 350/microL who began PCP prophylaxis after their first measured CD4 lymphocyte count less than 200/microL. Data were from randomized controlled trials and other published literature. RESULTS: For patients with CD4 cell count increases during HAART, waiting to stop prophylaxis until the first observed CD4 cell count was greater than 300/microL prevented 9 additional cases per 1000 patients and cost $9400 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared with stopping prophylaxis at 200/microL. For patients intolerant of TMP/SMX, using dapsone increased QALE by 2.7 months and cost $4500 per QALY compared with no prophylaxis. Using atovaquone rather than dapsone provided only 3 days of additional QALE and cost more than $1.5 million per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Delaying discontinuation of PCP prophylaxis until the first observed CD4 cell count greater than 300/microL is cost-effective and provides an explicit "PCP prophylaxis stopping criterion." In TMP/SMX-intolerant patients, dapsone is more cost-effective than atovaquone.