BACKGROUND: The traditional HIV treatment cascade has been noted to have limitations. A proposed comprehensive HIV care cascade that uses cohort methodology offers additional information as it accounts for all patients. Using data from 4 countries, we compare patient outcomes using both approaches. METHODS: Data from 390,603 HIV-infected adults (>15 years) enrolled at 217 facilities in Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Tanzania from 2005 to 2011 were included. Outcomes of all patients at 3, 6, and 12 months after enrollment were categorized as optimal, suboptimal, or poor. Optimal outcomes included retention in care, antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation, and documented transfer. Suboptimal outcomes included retention in care without ART initiation among eligible patients or those without eligibility data. Poor outcomes included loss to follow-up and death. RESULTS: The comprehensive HIV care cascade demonstrated that at 3, 6 and 12 months, 58%, 51%, and 49% of patients had optimal outcomes; 22%, 12%, and 7% had suboptimal outcomes, and 20%, 37% and 44% had poor outcomes. Of all patients enrolled in care, 56% were retained in care at 12 months after enrollment. In comparison, the traditional HIV treatment cascade found 89% of patients enrolled in HIV care were assessed for ART eligibility, of whom 48% were determined to be ART-eligible with 70% initiating ART, and 78% of those initiated on ART retained at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive HIV care cascade follows outcomes of all patients, including pre-ART patients, who enroll in HIV care over time and uses quality of care parameters for categorizing outcomes. The comprehensive HIV care cascade provides complementary information to that of the traditional HIV treatment cascade and is a valuable tool for monitoring HIV program performance.
BACKGROUND: The traditional HIV treatment cascade has been noted to have limitations. A proposed comprehensive HIV care cascade that uses cohort methodology offers additional information as it accounts for all patients. Using data from 4 countries, we compare patient outcomes using both approaches. METHODS: Data from 390,603 HIV-infected adults (>15 years) enrolled at 217 facilities in Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Tanzania from 2005 to 2011 were included. Outcomes of all patients at 3, 6, and 12 months after enrollment were categorized as optimal, suboptimal, or poor. Optimal outcomes included retention in care, antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation, and documented transfer. Suboptimal outcomes included retention in care without ARTinitiation among eligible patients or those without eligibility data. Poor outcomes included loss to follow-up and death. RESULTS: The comprehensive HIV care cascade demonstrated that at 3, 6 and 12 months, 58%, 51%, and 49% of patients had optimal outcomes; 22%, 12%, and 7% had suboptimal outcomes, and 20%, 37% and 44% had poor outcomes. Of all patients enrolled in care, 56% were retained in care at 12 months after enrollment. In comparison, the traditional HIV treatment cascade found 89% of patients enrolled in HIV care were assessed for ART eligibility, of whom 48% were determined to be ART-eligible with 70% initiating ART, and 78% of those initiated on ART retained at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive HIV care cascade follows outcomes of all patients, including pre-ARTpatients, who enroll in HIV care over time and uses quality of care parameters for categorizing outcomes. The comprehensive HIV care cascade provides complementary information to that of the traditional HIV treatment cascade and is a valuable tool for monitoring HIV program performance.
Authors: Bohdan Nosyk; Julio S G Montaner; Guillaume Colley; Viviane D Lima; Keith Chan; Katherine Heath; Benita Yip; Hasina Samji; Mark Gilbert; Rolando Barrios; Réka Gustafson; Robert S Hogg Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Elena Losina; Ingrid V Bassett; Janet Giddy; Senica Chetty; Susan Regan; Rochelle P Walensky; Douglas Ross; Callie A Scott; Lauren M Uhler; Jeffrey N Katz; Helga Holst; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Neo Christopher Chung; Carolyn Bolton-Moore; Roma Chilengi; Margaret P Kasaro; Jeffrey S A Stringer; Benjamin H Chi Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Catherine Orrell; Kathy Goggin; Ingrid T Katz; Laura M Bogart; Garrett M Fitzmaurice; Vincent S Staggs; Marya V Gwadz; Ingrid V Bassett; Anna Cross; Ingrid Courtney; Lungiswa Tsolekile; Regina Panda; Sonja Steck; David R Bangsberg Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2020-10-30
Authors: Ivy Mushamiri; Wintana Belai; Emma Sacks; Becky Genberg; Sundeep Gupta; Henry B Perry Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2021-07-10 Impact factor: 4.413
Authors: Tessa J M Geraedts; Daniel Boateng; Karel C Lindenbergh; Diede van Delft; Hanna M Mathéron; Gulia L E Mönnink; Janine P J Martens; Daniel van Leerdam; Jonathan Vas Nunes; Sonnia-Magba Bu-Buakei Jabbi; Mohamed S Kpaka; Josien Westendorp; Alex J van Duinen; Osman Sankoh; Martin P Grobusch; Håkon A Bolkan; Kerstin Klipstein-Grobusch Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 3.918