Browsing by Author "Grimsrud A"

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8

Attrition from HIV treatment after enrollment in a differentiated service delivery model: A cohort analysis of routine care in Zambia.
(2023) Jo Y; Jamieson L; Phiri B; Grimsrud A; Mwansa M; Shakwelele H; Haimbe P; Mukumbwa-Mwenechanya M; Mulenga PL; Nichols BE; Rosen S; Department of Internal Medicine, Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.; Department of Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States of America.; Clinton Health Access Initiative, Lusaka, Zambia.; Department of Medical Microbiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.; HIV Programmes and Advocacy, International AIDS Society, Cape Town, South Africa.; Ministry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.; CIDRZ; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)
BACKGROUND: Many sub-Saharan Africa countries are scaling up differentiated service delivery (DSD) models for HIV treatment to increase access and remove barriers to care. We assessed factors associated with attrition after DSD model enrollment in Zambia, focusing on patient-level characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective record review using electronic medical records (EMR) of adults (≥15 years) initiated on antiretroviral (ART) between 01 January 2018 and 30 November 2021. Attrition was defined as lost to follow-up (LTFU) or died by November 30, 2021. We categorized DSD models into eight groups: fast-track, adherence groups, community pick-up points, home ART delivery, extended facility hours, facility multi-month dispensing (MMD, 4-6-month ART dispensing), frequent refill care (facility 1-2 month dispensing), and conventional care (facility 3 month dispensing, reference group). We used Fine and Gray competing risk regression to assess patient-level factors associated with attrition, stratified by sex and rural/urban setting. RESULTS: Of 547,281 eligible patients, 68% (n = 372,409) enrolled in DSD models, most commonly facility MMD (n = 306,430, 82%), frequent refill care (n = 47,142, 13%), and fast track (n = 14,433, 4%), with <2% enrolled in the other DSD groups. Retention was higher in nearly all DSD models for all dispensing intervals, compared to the reference group, except fast track for the ≤2 month dispensing group. Retention benefits were greatest for patients in the extended clinic hours group and least for fast track dispensing. CONCLUSION: Although retention in HIV treatment differed by DSD type, dispensing interval, and patient characteristics, nearly all DSD models out-performed conventional care. Understanding the factors that influence the retention of patients in DSD models could provide an important step towards improving DSD implementation.
Emerging priorities for HIV service delivery.
(2020-Feb) Ford N; Geng E; Ellman T; Orrell C; Ehrenkranz P; Sikazwe I; Jahn A; Rabkin M; Ayisi Addo S; Grimsrud A; Rosen S; Zulu I; Reidy W; Lejone T; Apollo T; Holmes C; Kolling AF; Phate Lesihla R; Nguyen HH; Bakashaba B; Chitembo L; Tiriste G; Doherty M; Bygrave H; National AIDS Control Programme, Ministry of Health, Accra, Ghana.; Department HIV, World Health Organization, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.; ICAP, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, United States of America.; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.; National AIDS Control Programme, Ministry of Health, Maseru, Lesotho.; Southern African Medical Unit, Médecins Sans Frontières, Cape Town, South Africa.; Department of Surveillance, Prevention and Control of STIs, HIV/AIDS and Viral Hepatitis, Ministry of Health, Brasilia, Brazil.; SolidarMed, Swiss Organization for Health in Africa, Butha-Buthe, Lesotho.; The AIDS Support Organization (TASO), Kampala, Uganda.; International AIDS Society, Cape Town, South Africa.; Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa.; Division of Global HIV & TB, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.; Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States of America.; Treatment and Care Department, Viet Nam Authority of HIV/AIDS Control, Ministry of Health, Hanoi, Vietnam.; Ministry of Health and Child Care Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.; Ministry of Health, Lilongwe, Malawi.; Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Cape Town, South Africa.; Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.; Department HIV, World Health Organization Lusaka, Zambia.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; Department HIV & Global Hepatitis Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.; Center for Dissemination and Implementation, Institute for Public Health, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.; CIDRZ; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)
Nathan Ford and co-authors discuss global priorities in the provision of HIV prevention and treatment services.
Extending Visit Intervals for Clinically Stable Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy: Multicohort Analysis of HIV Programs in Southern Africa.
(2019-Aug-01) Haas AD; Johnson LF; Grimsrud A; Ford N; Mugglin C; Fox MP; Euvrard J; van Lettow M; Prozesky H; Sikazwe I; Chimbetete C; Hobbins M; Kunzekwenyika C; Egger M; Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.; Department of Internal Medicine, Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.; Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.; Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA.; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.; Centre for Infectious Diseases Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; Newlands Clinic, Harare, Zimbabwe.; Department of HIV/AIDS World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.; SolidarMed, Masvingo, Zimbabwe.; International AIDS Society, Cape Town, South Africa.; Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Tygerberg Academic Hospital, University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa.; Dignitas International, Zomba, Malawi.; SolidarMed, Lucerne, Switzerland.; CIDRZ; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends differentiated antiretroviral therapy (ART) delivery with longer visit intervals for clinically stable patients. We examined time trends in visit frequency and associations between criteria for clinical stability and visit frequency in ART programs in Southern Africa. METHODS: We included adults on ART from 4 programs with viral-load monitoring, 2 programs with CD4 monitoring, and 4 programs with clinical monitoring of ART. We classified patients as clinically stable based on virological (viral load <1000 copies/mL), immunological (CD4 >200 cells/µL), or clinical (no current tuberculosis) criteria. We used Poisson regression and survival models to examine associations between criteria for clinical stability and the rate of clinic visits. RESULTS: We included 180,837 patients. There were trends toward fewer visits in more recent years and with longer ART duration. In all ART programs, clinically stable patients were seen less frequently than patients receiving failing ART, but the strength of the association varied. Adjusted incidence rate ratios comparing visit rates for stable patients with patients on failing ART were 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 0.90) for patients classified based on the virological criterion, 0.81 (0.69 to 0.93) for patients classified based on the clinical criterion, and 0.90 (0.85 to 0.96) for patients classified based on the immunological criterion for stability. CONCLUSION: Differences in visit rates between stable patients and patients failing ART were variable and modest overall. Larger differences were seen in programs using virological criteria for clinical stability than in programs using immunological criteria. Greater access to routine viral-load monitoring may increase scale-up of differentiated ART delivery.
How soon should patients be eligible for differentiated service delivery models for antiretroviral treatment? Evidence from a retrospective cohort study in Zambia.
(2022-Dec-22) Jamieson L; Rosen S; Phiri B; Grimsrud A; Mwansa M; Shakwelele H; Haimbe P; Mukumbwa-Mwenechanya M; Lumano-Mulenga P; Chiboma I; Nichols BE; Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.; Clinton Health Access Initiative, Lusaka, Zambia.; Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, University of the Witwatersrand Faculty of Health Sciences, Johannesburg, South Africa sbrosen@bu.edu.; Department of Medical Microbiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.; Implementation Science Unit, Center for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; International AIDS Society, Cape Town, South Africa.; Ministry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.; Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, University of the Witwatersrand Faculty of Health Sciences, Johannesburg, South Africa.; CIDRZ; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)
OBJECTIVES: Patient attrition is high the first 6 months after antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation. Patients with <6 months of ART are systematically excluded from most differentiated service delivery (DSD) models, which are intended to support retention. Despite DSD eligibility criteria requiring ≥6 months on ART, some patients enrol earlier. We compared loss to follow-up (LTFU) between patients enrolling in DSD models early with those enrolled according to guidelines, assessing whether the ART experience eligibility criterion is necessary. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using routinely collected electronic medical record data. SETTING: PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥15 years) who initiated ART between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020. OUTCOMES: LTFU (>30 days late for scheduled visit) at 18 months for 'early enrollers' (DSD enrolment after <6 months on ART) and 'established enrollers' (DSD enrolment after ≥6 months on ART). We used a log-binomial model to compare LTFU risk, adjusting for age, sex, location, ART refill interval and DSD model. RESULTS: For 6340 early enrollers and 25 857 established enrollers, there were no differences in sex (61% female), age (median 37 years) or location (65% urban). ART refill intervals were longer for established versus early enrollers (72% vs 55% were given 4-6 months refills). LTFU at 18 months was 3% (192 of 6340) for early enrollers and 5% (24 646 of 25 857) for established enrollers. Early enrollers were 41% less likely to be LTFU than established patients (adjusted risk ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Patients enrolled in DSD after <6 months of ART were more likely to be retained than patients established on ART prior to DSD enrolment. A limitation is that early enrollers may have been selected for DSD due to providers' and patients' expectations about future retention. Offering DSD models to ART patients soon after ART initiation may help address high attrition during the early treatment period. TRIAL REGISTERATION NUMBER: NCT04158882.
Silver linings: how COVID-19 expedited differentiated service delivery for HIV.
(2021-Oct) Grimsrud A; Ehrenkranz P; Sikazwe I; HIV Programmes and Advocacy, International AIDS Society, Cape Town, South Africa.; Global Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ), Lusaka, Zambia.
The revolving door of HIV care: Revising the service delivery cascade to achieve the UNAIDS 95-95-95 goals.
(2021-May) Ehrenkranz P; Rosen S; Boulle A; Eaton JW; Ford N; Fox MP; Grimsrud A; Rice BD; Sikazwe I; Holmes CB; Center for Innovation in Global Health, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States of America.; MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.; Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.; Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.; HIV & Global Hepatitis Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.; Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.; School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.; HIV Programmes & Advocacy Department, International AIDS Society, Cape Town, South Africa.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.; Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.; Global Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, United States of America.; CIDRZ; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)
Peter Ehrenkranz and co-authors present a cyclical cascade of care for people with HIV infection, aiming to facilitate assessment of outcomes.
Understanding Engagement in HIV Programmes: How Health Services Can Adapt to Ensure No One Is Left Behind.
(2020-Oct) Grimsrud A; Wilkinson L; Eshun-Wilson I; Holmes C; Sikazwe I; Katz IT; Harvard Global Health Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA.; Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Global Health, Boston, MA, USA.; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.; Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.; School of Medicine, Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA.; International AIDS Society, 3 Doris Road, Claremont, Cape Town, 7708, South Africa.; Desmond Tutu HIV Centre, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory, Cape Town, 7925, South Africa. anna.grimsrud@iasociety.org.; Center for Innovation in Global Health, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.; Department of Public Health Medicine, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; International AIDS Society, 3 Doris Road, Claremont, Cape Town, 7708, South Africa. anna.grimsrud@iasociety.org.; CIDRZ; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite the significant progress in the HIV response, gaps remain in ensuring engagement in care to support life-long medication adherence and viral suppression. This review sought to describe the different points in the HIV care cascade where people living with HIV were not engaging and highlight promising interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: There are opportunities to improve engagement both between testing and treatment and to support re-engagement in care for those in a treatment interruption. The gap between testing and treatment includes people who know their HIV status and people who do not know their status. People in a treatment interruption include those who interrupt immediately following initiation, early on in their treatment (first 6 months) and late (after 6 months or more on ART). For each of these groups, specific interventions are required to support improved engagement. There are diverse needs and specific populations of people living with HIV who are not engaged in care, and differentiated service delivery interventions are required to meet their needs and expectations. For the HIV response to realise the 2030 targets, engagement will need to be supported by quality care and patient choice combined with empowered patients who are treatment literate and have been supported to improve self-management.
Universal definition of loss to follow-up in HIV treatment programs: a statistical analysis of 111 facilities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
(2011-Oct) Chi BH; Yiannoutsos CT; Westfall AO; Newman JE; Zhou J; Cesar C; Brinkhof MW; Mwango A; Balestre E; Carriquiry G; Sirisanthana T; Mukumbi H; Martin JN; Grimsrud A; Bacon M; Thiebaut R; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America. bchi@cidrz.org; CIDRZ; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)
BACKGROUND: Although patient attrition is recognized as a threat to the long-term success of antiretroviral therapy programs worldwide, there is no universal definition for classifying patients as lost to follow-up (LTFU). We analyzed data from health facilities across Africa, Asia, and Latin America to empirically determine a standard LTFU definition. METHODS AND FINDINGS: At a set "status classification" date, patients were categorized as either "active" or "LTFU" according to different intervals from time of last clinic encounter. For each threshold, we looked forward 365 d to assess the performance and accuracy of this initial classification. The best-performing definition for LTFU had the lowest proportion of patients misclassified as active or LTFU. Observational data from 111 health facilities-representing 180,718 patients from 19 countries-were included in this study. In the primary analysis, for which data from all facilities were pooled, an interval of 180 d (95% confidence interval [CI]: 173-181 d) since last patient encounter resulted in the fewest misclassifications (7.7%, 95% CI: 7.6%-7.8%). A secondary analysis that gave equal weight to cohorts and to regions generated a similar result (175 d); however, an alternate approach that used inverse weighting for cohorts based on variance and equal weighting for regions produced a slightly lower summary measure (150 d). When examined at the facility level, the best-performing definition varied from 58 to 383 d (mean=150 d), but when a standard definition of 180 d was applied to each facility, only slight increases in misclassification (mean=1.2%, 95% CI: 1.0%-1.5%) were observed. Using this definition, the proportion of patients classified as LTFU by facility ranged from 3.1% to 45.1% (mean=19.9%, 95% CI: 19.1%-21.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this evaluation, we recommend the adoption of ≥180 d since the last clinic visit as a standard LTFU definition. Such standardization is an important step to understanding the reasons that underlie patient attrition and establishing more reliable and comparable program evaluation worldwide. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.