Gender Differences in Adherence and Response to Antiretroviral Treatment in the Stratall Trial in Rural District Hospitals in Cameroon.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of gender differences in antiretroviral treatment (ART) outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa is conflicting. Our objective was to assess gender differences in (1) adherence to ART and (2) virologic failure, immune reconstitution, mortality, and disease progression adjusting for adherence. METHODS: Cohort study among 459 ART-naive patients followed up 24 months after initiation in 2006-2010 in 9 rural district hospitals. Adherence to ART was assessed using (1) a validated tool based on multiple patient self-reports and (2) antiretroviral plasma concentrations. The associations between gender and the outcomes were assessed using multivariate mixed models or accelerated time failure models. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients (29.4%) were men. At baseline, men were older, had higher body mass index and hemoglobin level, and received more frequently efavirenz than women. Gender was not associated with self-reported adherence (P = 0.872, 0.169, and 0.867 for moderate adherence, low adherence, and treatment interruption, respectively) or with antiretroviral plasma concentrations (P = 0.549 for nevirapine/efavirenz). In contrast, male gender was associated with virologic failure [odds ratio: 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31 to 3.62, P = 0.003], lower immunologic reconstitution (coefficient: -58.7 at month 24, 95% CI: -100.8 to -16.6, P = 0.006), and faster progression to death (time ratio: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.78, P = 0.014) and/or to World Health Organization stage 4 event (time ratio: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.79, P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides important evidence that African men are more vulnerable to ART failure than women and that the male vulnerability extends beyond adherence issues. Additional studies are needed to determine the causes for this vulnerability to optimize HIV care. However, personalized adherence support remains crucial.

Prediction of HIV drug resistance based on virologic, immunologic, clinical, and/or adherence criteria in the Stratall ANRS 12110/ESTHER trial in Cameroon.

Our study in Cameroonian rural district hospitals showed that the immunologic and clinical failure criteria had poor performance to identify human immunodeficiency virus drug resistance in a timely manner. Switching to second-line antiretroviral therapy after 2 consecutive viral loads ≥5000 copies/mL, as recommended by the World Health Organization, appeared to be the most appropriate strategy.

Development of a checklist of quality indicators for clinical trials in resource-limited countries: the French National Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral Hepatitis (ANRS) experience.

BACKGROUND: Since 1994, the French National Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral Hepatitis (ANRS) has funded research sites in resource-limited countries (RLCs). These sites implement research on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and Hepatitis C. In parallel, international regulations and recommendations for clinical trials have evolved and proliferated. However, little guidance exists on how these should be interpreted and applied within academic trials and in the context of RLCs. After developing a specific Ethical Charter for research in developing countries in 2002, ANRS developed a set of quality indicators (QIs) as a monitoring tool for assessing compliance to international guidelines. PURPOSE: We describe here the development process, QIs adopted, and areas for improvement. METHODS: In 2008, a group of experts was convened that included a researcher representing each ANRS site (Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal, Cameroun, Burkina Faso, Egypt, and Cambodia). Our structuring interaction development process combined evidence and expert opinion in two nominal group meetings to identify (1) clinical trial processes involved, (2) issues specific to RLCs in terms of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and the application of ethical recommendations, and (3) checklists of QIs adapted to clinical trials conducted in RLCs. RESULTS: The trial process reviewed and proposed for RLCs was mostly similar to the one produced in wealthier countries. The scheme generated by our work group added two further processes: 'drug management' and 'biological investigations'. Specific issues regarding trial management in RLCs were therefore described for eight trial steps (1) protocol conception and seeking authorizations, (2) participant enrollment and follow-up, (3) site monitoring, (4) drug management, (5) biological investigations, (6) record management, (7) data management, and (8) site closeout. A total of 58 indicators were identified with at least one indicator for each trial process. LIMITATIONS: Some trial activities require further consideration, that is, in the case of vulnerable participants (children, pregnant women). Proposed indicators are the result of expert consensus and reflect their experience in the HIV field. Relevance to existing trials and extrapolation to other fields must be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: This innovative program allowed ANRS sites located in RLCs to share their GCP implementation experiences in order to build a list of relevant indicators for clinical trials. The next step is to collect data from ongoing HIV and hepatitis C trials in these settings and will assess the relevance of these indicators to document current quality of performance among trials in resource-limited settings.

Operational research and HIV policy and guidelines: lessons from a study of patients lost to follow-up from a public antiretroviral treatment program in Cameroon.

Can operations and implementation research guide today's unprecedented efforts to scale-up HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, care, and support in resource-limited settings? Our study of patients with HIV/AIDS who were first seen at the Central Hospital (Yaoundé, Cameroon) to begin antiretroviral therapy demonstrates the value of using operations research to explore programs, policies, and guidelines used in health care. We studied one group of patients, those lost to follow-up. Our findings confirmed the value of early treatment, systems to follow individuals, free treatment, and resources that enable operations research. We encourage health-care workers and program managers to perform operational research in their own context, and we emphasize the importance of allocating adequate human, financial, and logistic resources for this activity. Finally, we stress that the health-care workers, program managers, and researchers must work together to better inform policy and guidelines.

Monitoring of HIV viral loads, CD4 cell counts, and clinical assessments versus clinical monitoring alone for antiretroviral therapy in rural district hospitals in Cameroon (Stratall ANRS 12110/ESTHER): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Scaling up of antiretroviral therapy in low-resource countries is done on the basis of decentralised, integrated HIV care in rural facilities; however, laboratory monitoring is generally unavailable. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of clinical monitoring alone (CLIN) in terms of non-inferiority to laboratory and clinical monitoring (LAB). METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial in nine rural district hospitals in Cameroon. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years) infected with HIV-1 group M (WHO disease stage 3-4) who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy, and were followed-up for 2 years by health-care workers in routine activities. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to CLIN or LAB (counts of HIV viral load and CD4 cell every 6 months) groups with a computer-generated list. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of CLIN to LAB in terms of increase in CD4 cell count with a non-inferiority margin of 25%. We did all analyses in participants who attended at least one follow-up visit. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00301561. FINDINGS: 238 (93%) of 256 participants assigned to CLIN and 221 (93%) of 237 assigned to LAB were eligible for analysis. CLIN was not non-inferior to LAB; the mean increase in CD4 cell count was 175 cells per µL (SD 190, 95% CI 151-200) with CLIN and 206 (190, 181-231) with LAB (difference -31 [-63 to 2] and non-inferiority margin -52 [-58 to -45]). Furthermore, in the predefined secondary outcome of treatment changes, 13 participants (6%) in the LAB group switched to second-line regimens whereas no participants in the CLIN group did so (p<0·0001). By contrast, other predefined secondary outcomes were much the same in both groups-viral suppression (<40 copies per mL; 465 [49%] of 952 measurements in CLIN vs 456 [52%] of 884 in LAB), HIV resistance (23 [10%] of 238 participants vs 22 [10%] of 219 participants), mortality (44 [18%] of 238 vs 32 [14%] of 221), disease progression (85 [36%] of 238 vs 64 [29%] of 221), adherence (672 [63%] of 1067 measurements vs 621 [61%] of 1011), loss to follow-up (21 [9%] of 238 vs 17 [8%] of 221), and toxic effects (46 [19%] of 238 vs 56 [25%] of 221). INTERPRETATION: Our findings support WHO's recommendation for laboratory monitoring of antiretroviral therapy. However, the small differences that we noted between the strategies suggest that clinical monitoring alone could be used, at least temporarily, to expand antiretroviral therapy in low-resource settings. FUNDING: French National Agency for Research on AIDS (ANRS) and Ensemble pour une Solidarité Thérapeutique Hospitalière En Réseau (ESTHER).

WHO clinical criteria-based initiation of antiretroviral therapy: lessons from rural district hospitals in Cameroon with regard to 2009 revised WHO recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of patients infected with HIV with a CD4 count above 350 cells/mm(3) among those classified at WHO clinical stage 3 or 4 who initiated antiretroviral therapy in rural district hospitals in Cameroon to assess the 2009 revised WHO recommendations. METHODS: Cross-sectional study in nine rural district hospitals where the treatment initiation is based on the WHO clinical criteria. The proportion of patients who were classified at stage 3 or 4 and who had a CD4 count >350 cells/mm(3) was assessed. RESULTS: Of 458 patients included in 2006-2008 (women 70.5%; median age 37.0 years), 337 (73.6%) were classified at WHO clinical stage 3 and 121 (26.4%) at stage 4. Overall, 108 patients (23.6%) had a CD4 count >350 cells/mm(3). Of them, 94 patients (20.5%) were classified at WHO clinical stage 3, and 14 (3.1%) were classified at WHO clinical stage 4. CONCLUSION: The WHO clinical stages 3 and 4 were poorly correlated with the 'gold standard' of CD4 cell count. This study highlights the need to promote CD4 testing for assessing the patient eligibility.