Pediatric to adult healthcare transitioning for adolescents living with HIV in Nigeria: A national survey.

INTRODUCTION: The period of transition from pediatric to adult care has been associated with poor health outcomes among 10-19 year old adolescents living with HIV (ALHIV). This has prompted a focus on the quality of transition services, especially in high ALHIV-burden countries. Due to lack of guidelines, there are no healthcare transition standards for Nigeria's estimated 240,000 ALHIV. We conducted a nationwide survey to characterize routine transition procedures for Nigerian ALHIV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was conducted at public healthcare facilities supported by five local HIV service implementing partners. Comprehensive HIV treatment facilities with ≥1 year of HIV service provision and ≥20 ALHIVs enrolled were selected. A structured questionnaire assessed availability of treatment, care and transition services for ALHIV. Transition was defined as a preparatory process catering to the medical, psychosocial, and educational needs of adolescents moving from pediatric to adult care. Comprehensive transition services were defined by 6 core elements: policy, tracking and monitoring, readiness evaluation, planning, transfer of care, and follow-up. RESULTS: All 152 eligible facilities were surveyed and comprised 106 (69.7%) secondary and 46 (30.3%) tertiary centers at which 17,662 ALHIV were enrolled. The majority (73, 48.3%) of the 151 facilities responding to the "clinic type" question were family-centered and saw all clients together regardless of age. Only 42 (27.8%) facilities had an adolescent-specific HIV clinic; 53 (35.1%) had separate pediatric/adolescent and adult HIV clinics, of which 39 (73.6%) reported having a transfer/transition policy. Only 6 (15.4%) of these 39 facilities reported having a written protocol. There was a bimodal peak at 15 and 18 years for age of ALHIV transfer to adult care. No surveyed facility met the study definition for comprehensive transition services. CONCLUSIONS: Facilities surveyed were more likely to have non-specialized HIV treatment services and had loosely-defined, abrupt transfer versus transition practices, which lacked the core transition elements. Evidence-based standards of transitional care tailored to non-specialized HIV treatment programs need to be established to optimize transition outcomes among ALHIV in Nigeria and in similar settings.

Bridging the HIV treatment gap in Nigeria: examining community antiretroviral treatment models.

INTRODUCTION: Significant gaps persist in providing HIV treatment to all who are in need. Restricting care delivery to healthcare facilities will continue to perpetuate this gap in limited resource settings. We assessed a large-scale community-based programme for effectiveness in identifying people living with HIV and linking them to antiretroviral treatment. METHODS: A retrospective secular trend study of 14 high burden local government areas of Nigeria was conducted in which two models of community antiretroviral treatment delivery were implemented: Model A (on-site initiation) and Model B (immediate referral) clusters. Model A cluster offered services within communities, from HIV diagnosis to immediate antiretroviral therapy initiation and some follow-up. Model B cluster offered services for HIV diagnosis up to baseline evaluation and provided referral for antiretroviral therapy initiation to nearest health facility providing HIV services. For controls, we selected and cluster-matched 34 local government areas where community antiretroviral treatment delivery was not implemented. Outcomes of interest were: the number of people identified as HIV positive and the number of HIV-positive individuals started on antiretroviral treatment; from June 2014 to May 2016. We used interrupted time-series analysis to estimate outcome levels and trends across the pre-and post-intervention periods. RESULTS: Before community antiretrovial treatment introduction, Model A cluster identified, per 100,000 catchment population, 500 HIV-positives (95% CI: 399.66 to 601.41) and initiated 216 HIV-positives on antiretroviral treatment (95% CI: 152.72 to 280.10). Model B cluster identified 32 HIV-positives (95% CI: 25.00 to 40.51) and initiated 8 HIV-positives on antiretroviral treatment (95% CI: 5.54 to 10.33). After commART introduction, Model A cluster showed an immediate significant increase in 744 HIV-positive persons (p = 0.00, 95% CI: 360.35 to 1127.77) and 560 HIV-positives initiated on treatment (p = 0.00, 95% CI: 260.56 to 859.64). Model B cluster showed an immediate significant increase in 30 HIV-positive persons identified (p = 0.01, 95% CI: 8.38 to 51.93) but not in the number of HIV-positives initiated on treatment. Model B cluster showed increased month-on-month trends of both outcomes of interest (3.4, p = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.44 to 6.38). CONCLUSION: Both community-models had similar population-level effectiveness for rapidly identifying people living with HIV but differed in effectively transitioning them to treatment. Comprehensiveness, integration and attention to barriers to care are important in the design of community antiretroviral treatment delivery.