Development, Assessment, and Outcomes of a Community-Based Model of Antiretroviral Care in Western Kenya Through a Cluster-Randomized Control Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess an alternative care model using community-based groups for people living with HIV and facilitate by lay personnel. METHODS: Geographic locations in the Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare Kitale clinic catchment were randomized to standard of care versus a community-based care group (ART Co-op). Adults stable on antiretroviral therapy and virally suppressed were eligible. Research Assistant-led ART Co-ops met in the community every 3 months. Participants were seen in the HIV clinic only if referred. CD4 count and viral load were measured in clinic at enrollment and after 12 months. Retention, viral suppression, and clinic utilization were compared between groups using χ2, Fisher exact, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. RESULTS: At 12 months, there were no significant differences in mean CD4 count or viral load suppression. There was a significant difference in patient retention in assigned study group between the intervention and control group (81.6% vs 98.6%; P < 0.001), with a number of intervention patients withdrawing because of stigma, relocation, pregnancy, and work conflicts. All participants, however, were retained in an HIV care program for the study duration. The median number of clinic visits was lower for the intervention group than that for the control group (0 vs 3; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals retained in a community-based HIV care model had clinical outcomes equivalent to those receiving clinic-based care. This innovative model of HIV care addresses the problems of insufficient health care personnel and patient retention barriers, including time, distance, and cost to attend clinic, and has the potential for wider implementation.

Evaluating strategies to improve HIV care outcomes in Kenya: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: With expanded access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) in sub-Saharan Africa, HIV mortality has decreased, yet life-years are still lost to AIDS. Strengthening of treatment programmes is a priority. We examined the state of an HIV care programme in Kenya and assessed interventions to improve the impact of ART programmes on population health. METHODS: We created an individual-based mathematical model to describe the HIV epidemic and the experiences of care among adults infected with HIV in Kenya. We calibrated the model to a longitudinal dataset from the Academic Model Providing Access To Healthcare (known as AMPATH) programme describing the routes into care, losses from care, and clinical outcomes. We simulated the cost and effect of interventions at different stages of HIV care, including improvements to diagnosis, linkage to care, retention and adherence of ART, immediate ART eligibility, and a universal test-and-treat strategy. FINDINGS: We estimate that, of people dying from AIDS between 2010 and 2030, most will have initiated treatment (61%), but many will never have been diagnosed (25%) or will have been diagnosed but never started ART (14%). Many interventions targeting a single stage of the health-care cascade were likely to be cost-effective, but any individual intervention averted only a small percentage of deaths because the effect is attenuated by other weaknesses in care. However, a combination of five interventions (including improved linkage, point-of-care CD4 testing, voluntary counselling and testing with point-of-care CD4, and outreach to improve retention in pre-ART care and on-ART) would have a much larger impact, averting 1·10 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) and 25% of expected new infections and would probably be cost-effective (US$571 per DALY averted). This strategy would improve health more efficiently than a universal test-and-treat intervention if there were no accompanying improvements to care ($1760 per DALY averted). INTERPRETATION: When resources are limited, combinations of interventions to improve care should be prioritised over high-cost strategies such as universal test-and-treat strategy, especially if this is not accompanied by improvements to the care cascade. International guidance on ART should reflect alternative routes to programme strengthening and encourage country programmes to evaluate the costs and population-health impact in addition to the clinical benefits of immediate initiation. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, United States Agency for International Development, National Institutes of Health.