OBJECTIVES: Retention of subjects in HIV treatment programmes is crucial for the success of treatment. We evaluated retention/loss to follow-up (LTFU) in subjects receiving established care in Malawi. METHODS: Data for HIV-positive patients registered in Drug Resource Enhancement Against AIDS and Malnutrition centres in Malawi prior to 2014 were reviewed. Visits entailing HIV testing/counselling, laboratory evaluations, nutritional evaluation/supplementation, community support, peer education, and antiretroviral (ART) monitoring/pharmacy were noted. LTFU was defined as > 90 days without an encounter. Parameters potentially associated with LTFU were explored, with univariate/multivariate logistic regression analyses being performed. RESULTS: Fifteen thousand and ninety-nine patients registered before 2014; 202 (1.3%) were lost to follow-up (LTFU) (1.3%). Nine (0.5%) of 1744 paediatric patients were LTFU vs. 1.4% (n = 193) of 13 355 adults (P < 0.001). Subjects who were LTFU had fewer days in care than retained subjects (1338 vs. 1544, respectively; P < 0.001) and a longer duration of ART (1530 vs. 1300 days, respectively; P < 0.001). Subjects who were LTFU had higher baseline HIV viral loads (P = 0.016) and higher body mass indexes (P < 0.001), were more likely to live in urban settings (88% of patients who were LTFU lived in urban settings) with better housing [relative risk (RR) 2.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67-3.09; P < 0.001], and were more likely to be educated (RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.42-2.50; P < 0.001). Distance to the centre and cost of transportation were associated with LTFU (RR 3.4; 95% CI 2.84-5.37; P < 0.001), as was absence of a maternal figure (RR 1.57; 95% CI 1.17-2.09; P < 0.001). Viral load, distance index, education and a maternal figure were predictive of LTFU. CONCLUSIONS: Educated, urbanized HIV-infected adults living far from programme centres are at high risk of LTFU, particularly if there is no maternal figure in the household. These variables must be taken into consideration when developing retention strategies.
OBJECTIVES: Retention of subjects in HIV treatment programmes is crucial for the success of treatment. We evaluated retention/loss to follow-up (LTFU) in subjects receiving established care in Malawi. METHODS: Data for HIV-positivepatients registered in Drug Resource Enhancement Against AIDS and Malnutrition centres in Malawi prior to 2014 were reviewed. Visits entailing HIV testing/counselling, laboratory evaluations, nutritional evaluation/supplementation, community support, peer education, and antiretroviral (ART) monitoring/pharmacy were noted. LTFU was defined as > 90 days without an encounter. Parameters potentially associated with LTFU were explored, with univariate/multivariate logistic regression analyses being performed. RESULTS: Fifteen thousand and ninety-nine patients registered before 2014; 202 (1.3%) were lost to follow-up (LTFU) (1.3%). Nine (0.5%) of 1744 paediatric patients were LTFU vs. 1.4% (n = 193) of 13 355 adults (P < 0.001). Subjects who were LTFU had fewer days in care than retained subjects (1338 vs. 1544, respectively; P < 0.001) and a longer duration of ART (1530 vs. 1300 days, respectively; P < 0.001). Subjects who were LTFU had higher baseline HIV viral loads (P = 0.016) and higher body mass indexes (P < 0.001), were more likely to live in urban settings (88% of patients who were LTFU lived in urban settings) with better housing [relative risk (RR) 2.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67-3.09; P < 0.001], and were more likely to be educated (RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.42-2.50; P < 0.001). Distance to the centre and cost of transportation were associated with LTFU (RR 3.4; 95% CI 2.84-5.37; P < 0.001), as was absence of a maternal figure (RR 1.57; 95% CI 1.17-2.09; P < 0.001). Viral load, distance index, education and a maternal figure were predictive of LTFU. CONCLUSIONS: Educated, urbanized HIV-infected adults living far from programme centres are at high risk of LTFU, particularly if there is no maternal figure in the household. These variables must be taken into consideration when developing retention strategies.
Authors: A Jiamsakul; S Kiertiburanakul; O T Ng; R Chaiwarith; W Wong; R Ditangco; K V Nguyen; A Avihingsanon; S Pujari; C D Do; M-P Lee; P S Ly; E Yunihastuti; N Kumarasamy; A Kamarulzaman; J Tanuma; F Zhang; J Y Choi; P Kantipong; Blh Sim; J Ross; M Law; T P Merati Journal: HIV Med Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: S Orlando; I Triulzi; F Ciccacci; I Palla; L Palombi; M C Marazzi; M Giuliano; M Floridia; S Mancinelli; E Mutemba; G Turchetti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Silviu Tomescu; Thomas Crompton; Jonathan Adebayo; Constance Wose Kinge; Francis Akpan; Marcus Rennick; Charles Chasela; Evans Ondura; Dauda Sulaiman Dauda; Pedro T Pisa Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Gulzar H Shah; Gina D Etheredge; Lievain Maluentesa Nkuta; Kristie C Waterfield; Osaremhen Ikhile; John Ditekemena; Bossiky Ngoy Belly Bernard Journal: Trop Med Infect Dis Date: 2022-09-05
Authors: Massimo Leone; Fausto Ciccacci; Stefano Orlando; Sandro Petrolati; Giovanni Guidotti; Noorjehan Abdul Majid; Victor Tamba Tolno; JeanBaptiste Sagno; Darlington Thole; Fabio Massimo Corsi; Michelangelo Bartolo; Maria Cristina Marazzi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 3.390