Browsing by Author "Mukora R"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Costs of implementing universal test and treat in three correctional facilities in South Africa and Zambia.
(2022) Mukora R; Smith HJ; Herce ME; Chimoyi L; Hausler H; Fielding KL; Charalambous S; Hoffmann CJ; TB/HIV Care Association, Cape Town, South Africa.; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.; School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.; The Aurum Institute, Aurum House, The Ridge, Johannesburg, South Africa.; School of Public Health & Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.; Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ), Lusaka, Zambia.
INTRODUCTION: Universal test and treat (UTT) is a population-based strategy that aims to ensure widespread HIV testing and rapid antiretroviral therapy (ART) for all who have tested positive regardless of CD4 count to decrease HIV incidence and improve health outcomes. Little is known about the specific resources required to implement UTT in correctional facilities for incarcerated people. The primary aim of this study was to describe the resources used to implement UTT and to provide detailed costing to inform UTT scale-up in similar settings. METHODS: The costing study was a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted in three correctional complexes, Johannesburg Correctional Facility in Johannesburg (>4000 inmates) South Africa, and Brandvlei (~3000 inmates), South Africa and Lusaka Central (~1400 inmates), Zambia. Costing was determined through a survey conducted between September and December 2017 that identified materials and labour used for three separate components of UTT: HIV testing services (HTS), ART initiation, and ART maintenance. Our study participants were staff working in the correctional facilities involved in any activity related to UTT implementation. Unit costs were reported as cost per client served while total costs were reported for all clients seen over a 12-month period. RESULTS: The cost of HIV testing services (HTS) per client was $ 92.12 at Brandvlei, $ 73.82 at Johannesburg, and $ 65.15 at Lusaka. The largest cost driver for HIV testing at Brandvlei were staff costs at 55.6% of the total cost, while at Johannesburg (56.5%) and Lusaka (86.6%) supplies were the largest contributor. The cost per client initiated on ART was $917 for Brandvlei, $421.8 for Johannesburg, and $252.1 for Lusaka. The activity cost drivers were adherence counselling at Brandvlei (59%), and at Johannesburg and Lusaka it was the actual ART initiation at 75.6% and 75.8%, respectively. The annual unit cost for ART maintenance was $2,640.6 for Brandvlei, $710 for Johannesburg, and $385.5 for Lusaka. The activity cost drivers for all three facilities were side effect monitoring, and initiation of isoniazid preventive treatment (IPT), cotrimoxazole, and fluconazole, with this comprising 44.7% of the total cost at Brandvlei, 88.9% at Johannesburg, and 50.5% at Lusaka. CONCLUSION: Given the needs of this population, the opportunity to reach inmates at high risk for HIV, and overall national and global 95-95-95 goals, the UTT policies for incarcerated individuals are of vital importance. Our findings provide comparator costing data and highlight key drivers of UTT cost by facility.
Universal test-and-treat in Zambian and South African correctional facilities: a multisite prospective cohort study.
(2020-Dec) Herce ME; Hoffmann CJ; Fielding K; Topp SM; Hausler H; Chimoyi L; Smith HJ; Chetty-Makkan CM; Mukora R; Tlali M; Olivier AJ; Muyoyeta M; Reid SE; Charalambous S; Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ), Lusaka, Zambia; Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.; College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Douglas, QLD, Australia.; The Aurum Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa; School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.; School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; The Aurum Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa.; TB HIV Care, Cape Town, South Africa.; The Aurum Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ), Lusaka, Zambia; Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: michael.herce@cidrz.org.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ), Lusaka, Zambia.
BACKGROUND: Despite the global scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART), incarcerated people have not benefited equally from test-and-treat recommendations for HIV. To improve access to ART for incarcerated people with HIV, we introduced a universal test-and-treat (UTT) intervention in correctional facilities in South Africa and Zambia, and aimed to assess UTT feasibility and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Treatment as Prevention (TasP) was a multisite, mixed methods, implementation research study done at three correctional complexes in South Africa (Johnannesburg and Breede River) and Zambia (Lusaka). Here, we report the clinical outcomes for a prospective cohort of incarcerated individuals who were offered the TasP UTT intervention. Incarcerated individuals were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18 years or older, with new or previously diagnosed HIV, not yet on ART, and were expected to remain incarcerated for 30 days or longer. To enable the implementation of UTT at the included correctional facilities, we first strengthened on-site HIV service delivery. All participants were offered same-day ART initiation, and had two study-specific follow-up visits scheduled to coincide with routine clinic visits at 6 and 12 months. The main outcomes were ART uptake, time from cohort enrolment to ART initiation, and retention in care and viral suppression at 6 and 12 months. We estimated the association between baseline demographic characteristics and time to ART initiation using Cox proportional hazard models, and, in a post-hoc analysis, we used logistic regression models to assess the association between demographic and clinical variables, including time to ART initiation, and the proportion of participants with a composite poor outcome (defined as viral load >50 copies per mL, or for participants with a missing viral load, lack of retention in care in the on-site ART programme) at 6 months. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02946762. FINDINGS: Between June 23, 2016, and Dec 31, 2017, we identified 1562 incarcerated people with HIV, of whom 1389 (89%) were screened, 1021 (74%) met eligibility criteria, and 975 (95%) were enrolled and followed up to March 31, 2018. At the end of follow-up, 835 (86%) of 975 participants had started ART. Median time from enrolment to ART initiation was 0 days (IQR 0-8). Of 346 participants who remained incarcerated at 6 months, 327 (95%) were retained in care and 269 (78%) had a documented viral load, of whom 262 (97%) achieved viral suppression (<1000 copies per mL). The mortality rate among the 835 participants who had initiated ART was 1·9 per 100 person-years (95% CI 0·9-3·9). No statistically significant associations were identified between any baseline characteristics and time to ART initiation or composite poor outcome. INTERPRETATION: UTT implementation is feasible in correctional settings, and can achieve levels of same-day ART uptake, retention in care, and viral suppression among incarcerated people with HIV that are comparable to those observed in community settings. FUNDING: UK Department for International Development, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.