Antiretroviral therapy in community pharmacies - Implementation and outcomes of a differentiated drug delivery model in Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization recommended differentiated models of care portends opportunities to decongest hospitals providing antiretroviral therapy (ART) and improve retention, especially in developing countries. A community pharmacy-based ART refill model was implemented where stable clients were devolved to community pharmacies for routine refills at a service fee, to promote private sector participation and sustainability of ART services. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability and outcomes of this model in Nigeria. METHODS: A population-based retrospective analysis of the community pharmacy ART refill program of the United States Agency for International Development-funded 'Strengthening Integrated Delivery of HIV/AIDS Services' project in Lagos, Rivers, Cross River and Akwa Ibom States from October 2016 to February 2018 was conducted. Standard descriptive statistical methods were used for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of study participants. Outcomes were assessed using the Chi-square test and a multivariate logistic regressions model. Statistical significance was defined at α-level of 0.05. Analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows version 23 (IBM Corp, Armonk, USA). RESULTS: A total of 10015 participants representing 14.4% of ART clients in 50 hospitals opted for this model and were devolved to 244 community pharmacies. All clients consented and paid a service fee of N1000 (about $3) per refill visit. Median follow-up duration was 6 months. Prescription refill rate was 95% (95% CI 94.2-95.3). Retention rate was 98% while viral suppression was 99.12%. Refill rates were significantly affected by ART duration, regimen, age and location (P < 0.001, 0.004, 0.034 and < 0.001 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This community pharmacy ART refill model of differentiated care is feasible and acceptable by clients and providers and demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes of retention and viral suppression. The ability and willingness of some clients to contribute financially to their HIV care was also demonstrated.

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.