OBJECTIVES: Late presentation to HIV/AIDS services compromises treatment outcomes and misses opportunities for biomedical and behavioural prevention. There has been significant heterogeneity in how the term 'late presentation' (LP) has been used in the literature. In 2011, a consensus definition was reached using CD4 counts to define and measure late presenters and, while it is useful for clinical care, the consensus definition has several important limitations that we discuss in this article. METHODS: Using the spectrum of engagement in HIV care presented by Gardner and colleagues, this article highlights issues and opportunities associated with use of the consensus definition. RESULTS: The consensus definition is limited by three principal factors: (1) the CD4 count threshold of 350 cells/μL is being increasingly questioned as the biomedical justification grows for earlier initiation of treatment; (2) CD4 evaluations are conducted at multiple services providing HIV care; thus it remains unclear to which service the patient is presenting late; and (3) the limited availability of CD4 evaluation restricts its use in determining the prevalence of LP in many settings. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus definition is useful because it describes the level of disease progression and allows for consistent evaluation of the prevalence and determinants of LP. Suggestions are provided for improving the application of the consensus definition in future research.
OBJECTIVES: Late presentation to HIV/AIDS services compromises treatment outcomes and misses opportunities for biomedical and behavioural prevention. There has been significant heterogeneity in how the term 'late presentation' (LP) has been used in the literature. In 2011, a consensus definition was reached using CD4 counts to define and measure late presenters and, while it is useful for clinical care, the consensus definition has several important limitations that we discuss in this article. METHODS: Using the spectrum of engagement in HIV care presented by Gardner and colleagues, this article highlights issues and opportunities associated with use of the consensus definition. RESULTS: The consensus definition is limited by three principal factors: (1) the CD4 count threshold of 350 cells/μL is being increasingly questioned as the biomedical justification grows for earlier initiation of treatment; (2) CD4 evaluations are conducted at multiple services providing HIV care; thus it remains unclear to which service the patient is presenting late; and (3) the limited availability of CD4 evaluation restricts its use in determining the prevalence of LP in many settings. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus definition is useful because it describes the level of disease progression and allows for consistent evaluation of the prevalence and determinants of LP. Suggestions are provided for improving the application of the consensus definition in future research.
Authors: Biru Yang; Shirley K Chan; Naqi Mohammad; Jeffrey A Meyer; Jan Risser; Karen J Chronister; Marcia L Wolverton; Raouf R Arafat; Lu-Yu Hwang Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2010-06
Authors: Michael J Mugavero; Sonia Napravnik; Stephen R Cole; Joseph J Eron; Bryan Lau; Heidi M Crane; Mari M Kitahata; James H Willig; Richard D Moore; Steven G Deeks; Michael S Saag Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Robert C Kalayjian; Nora Franceschini; Samir K Gupta; Lynda A Szczech; Ezekiel Mupere; Ronald J Bosch; Marlene Smurzynski; Jeffrey M Albert Journal: AIDS Date: 2008-02-19 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Ian Williams; Duncan Churchill; Jane Anderson; Marta Boffito; Mark Bower; Gus Cairns; Kate Cwynarski; Simon Edwards; Sarah Fidler; Martin Fisher; Andrew Freedman; Anna Maria Geretti; Yvonne Gilleece; Rob Horne; Margaret Johnson; Saye Khoo; Clifford Leen; Neal Marshall; Mark Nelson; Chloe Orkin; Nicholas Paton; Andrew Phillips; Frank Post; Anton Pozniak; Caroline Sabin; Roy Trevelion; Andrew Ustianowski; John Walsh; Laura Waters; Edmund Wilkins; Alan Winston; Mike Youle Journal: HIV Med Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: Sarah Fidler; Kholoud Porter; Fiona Ewings; John Frater; Gita Ramjee; David Cooper; Helen Rees; Martin Fisher; Mauro Schechter; Pontiano Kaleebu; Giuseppe Tambussi; Sabine Kinloch; Jose M Miro; Anthony Kelleher; Myra McClure; Steve Kaye; Michelle Gabriel; Rodney Phillips; Jonathan Weber; Abdel Babiker Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J M Kittner; L von Bialy; J Wiltink; T Thomaidis; B Gospodinov; A Rieke; F Katz; T Discher; K Rath; B Claus; G Held; G Friese; B Schappert; M Schuchmann; P R Galle Journal: Infection Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Inês Dourado; Sarah MacCarthy; Carlos Lima; Maria Amélia Veras; Ligia Kerr; Ana Maria de Brito; Sofia Gruskin Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2014-07-17
Authors: António L Moreira; Inês Fronteira; Gonçalo Figueiredo Augusto; Maria Rosario O Martins Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mia Liisa van der Kop; Lehana Thabane; Patricia Opondo Awiti; Samuel Muhula; Lennie Bazira Kyomuhangi; Richard Todd Lester; Anna Mia Ekström Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: A Sasse; E Florence; A Pharris; S De Wit; P Lacor; D Van Beckhoven; J Deblonde; M-L Delforge; K Fransen; J-C Goffard; J-C Legrand; M Moutschen; D Piérard; J Ruelle; D Vaira; B Vandercam; M Van Ranst; E Van Wijngaerden; L Vandekerckhove; C Verhofstede Journal: HIV Med Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 3.180