Design and implementation of a global site assessment survey among HIV clinics participating in the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) research consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Timely descriptions of HIV service characteristics and their evolution over time across diverse settings are important for monitoring the scale-up of evidence-based program strategies, understanding the implementation landscape, and examining service delivery factors that influence HIV care outcomes. METHODS: The International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium undertakes periodic cross-sectional surveys on service availability and care at participating HIV treatment sites to characterize trends and inform the scientific agenda for HIV care and implementation science communities. IeDEA's 2020 general site assessment survey was developed through a consultative, 18-month process that engaged diverse researchers in identifying content from previous surveys that should be retained for longitudinal analyses and in developing expanded and new content to address gaps in the literature. An iterative review process was undertaken to standardize the format of new survey questions and align them with best practices in survey design and measurement and lessons learned through prior IeDEA site assessment surveys. RESULTS: The survey questionnaire developed through this process included eight content domains covered in prior surveys (patient population, staffing and community linkages, HIV testing and diagnosis, new patient care, treatment monitoring and retention, routine HIV care and screening, pharmacy, record-keeping and patient tracing), along with expanded content related to antiretroviral therapy (differentiated service delivery and roll-out of dolutegravir-based regimens); mental health and substance use disorders; care for pregnant/postpartum women and HIV-exposed infants; tuberculosis preventive therapy; and pediatric/adolescent tuberculosis care; and new content related to Kaposi's sarcoma diagnostics, the impact of COVID-19 on service delivery, and structural barriers to HIV care. The survey was distributed to 238 HIV treatment sites in late 2020, with a 95% response rate. CONCLUSION: IeDEA's approach for site survey development has broad relevance for HIV research networks and other priority health conditions.

Service delivery challenges in HIV care during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: results from a site assessment survey across the global IeDEA consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Interruptions in treatment pose risks for people with HIV (PWH) and threaten progress in ending the HIV epidemic; however, the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on HIV service delivery across diverse settings is not broadly documented. METHODS: From September 2020 to March 2021, the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) research consortium surveyed 238 HIV care sites across seven geographic regions to document constraints in HIV service delivery during the first year of the pandemic and strategies for ensuring care continuity for PWH. Descriptive statistics were stratified by national HIV prevalence (<1%, 1-4.9% and ≥5%) and country income levels. RESULTS: Questions about pandemic-related consequences for HIV care were completed by 225 (95%) sites in 42 countries with low (n = 82), medium (n = 86) and high (n = 57) HIV prevalence, including low- (n = 57), lower-middle (n = 79), upper-middle (n = 39) and high- (n = 50) income countries. Most sites reported being subject to pandemic-related restrictions on travel, service provision or other operations (75%), and experiencing negative impacts (76%) on clinic operations, including decreased hours/days, reduced provider availability, clinic reconfiguration for COVID-19 services, record-keeping interruptions and suspension of partner support. Almost all sites in low-prevalence and high-income countries reported increased use of telemedicine (85% and 100%, respectively), compared with less than half of sites in high-prevalence and lower-income settings. Few sites in high-prevalence settings (2%) reported suspending antiretroviral therapy (ART) clinic services, and many reported adopting mitigation strategies to support adherence, including multi-month dispensing of ART (95%) and designating community ART pick-up points (44%). While few sites (5%) reported stockouts of first-line ART regimens, 10-11% reported stockouts of second- and third-line regimens, respectively, primarily in high-prevalence and lower-income settings. Interruptions in HIV viral load (VL) testing included suspension of testing (22%), longer turnaround times (41%) and supply/reagent stockouts (22%), but did not differ across settings. CONCLUSIONS: While many sites in high HIV prevalence settings and lower-income countries reported introducing or expanding measures to support treatment adherence and continuity of care, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in disruptions to VL testing and ART supply chains that may negatively affect the quality of HIV care in these settings.

Implementation of "Treat-all" at adult HIV care and treatment sites in the Global IeDEA Consortium: results from the Site Assessment Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that all people living with HIV (PLHIV) initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART), irrespective of CD4+ count or clinical stage. National adoption of universal treatment has accelerated since WHO's 2015 "Treat All" recommendation; however, little is known about the translation of this guidance into practice. This study aimed to assess the status of Treat All implementation across regions, countries, and levels of the health care delivery system. METHODS: Between June and December 2017, 201/221 (91%) adult HIV treatment sites that participate in the global IeDEA research consortium completed a survey on capacity and practices related to HIV care. Located in 41 countries across seven geographic regions, sites provided information on the status and timing of site-level introduction of Treat All, as well as site-level practices related to ART initiation. RESULTS: Almost all sites (93%) reported that they had begun implementing Treat All, and there were no statistically significant differences in site-level Treat All introduction by health facility type, urban/rural location, sector (public/private) or country income level. The median time between national policy adoption and site-level introduction was one month. In countries where Treat All was not yet adopted in national guidelines, 69% of sites reported initiating all patients on ART, regardless of clinical criteria, and these sites had been implementing Treat All for a median period of seven months at the time of the survey. The majority of sites (77%) reported typically initiating patients on ART within 14 days of confirming diagnosis, with 60% to 62% of sites implementing Treat All in East, Southern and West Africa reporting same-day ART initiation for most patients. CONCLUSIONS: By mid- to late-2017, the Treat All strategy was the standard of care at almost all IeDEA sites, including rural, primary-level health facilities in low-resource settings. While further assessments of site-level capacity to provide high-quality HIV care under Treat All and to support sustained viral suppression after ART initiation are needed, the widespread introduction of Treat All at the service delivery level is a critical step towards global targets for ending the HIV epidemic as a public health threat.

Fluoroquinolone resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: an assessment of MGIT 960, MODS and nitrate reductase assay and fluoroquinolone cross-resistance.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity, specificity and time to results of mycobacterial growth indicator tube (MGIT) 960, microscopic observation drug susceptibility (MODS) assay and nitrate reductase assay (NRA) compared with the gold standard agar proportion method (PM), and to determine whether there is cross-resistance between older-generation fluoroquinolones and moxifloxacin. METHODS: Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from culture-confirmed tuberculosis patients from 2002 to 2007 were tested for ofloxacin (2 mg/L) resistance by PM and MGIT 960. All isolates from 2005 and 2006 were also tested by MODS and NRA. Ofloxacin-resistant isolates by PM were further tested by all four methods using ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and moxifloxacin. For each ofloxacin-resistant isolate, two ofloxacin-susceptible isolates were tested against all three fluoroquinolones using all four methods. RESULTS: Of the 797 M. tuberculosis isolates, 19 (2.4%) were ofloxacin-resistant by PM. MGIT 960 had 100% sensitivity (95% CI, 83%-100%) and specificity (95% CI, 99.5%-100%). Of the 797 isolates, 239 were from 2005 to 2006 and 6 of these (2.5%) were resistant by PM. MODS had 100% sensitivity (95% CI, 61%-100%) and specificity (95% CI, 98%-100%). NRA had 100% sensitivity (95% CI, 61%-100%) and 98.7% specificity (95% CI, 96%-99.6%). The median time to results was shorter using MGIT 960 (8 days), MODS (6 days) or NRA (9 days) compared with PM (21 days) (P < 0.001). All 19 ofloxacin-resistant isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and moxifloxacin by PM. CONCLUSIONS: MGIT 960, MODS and NRA are sensitive and specific and more rapid than PM for identifying fluoroquinolone resistance in M. tuberculosis. Ofloxacin resistance was associated with cross-resistance to ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and moxifloxacin.