Impact of Multicomponent Support Strategies on Human Immunodeficiency Virus Virologic Suppression Rates During Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: After coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shelter-in-place (SIP) orders, viral suppression (VS) rates initially decreased within a safety-net human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinic in San Francisco, particularly among people living with HIV (PLWH) who are experiencing homelessness. We sought to determine if proactive outreach to provide social services, scaling up of in-person visits, and expansion of housing programs could reverse this decline. METHODS: We assessed VS 24 months before and 13 months after SIP using mixed-effects logistic regression followed by interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to examine changes in the rate of VS per month. Loss to follow-up (LTFU) was assessed via active clinic tracing. RESULTS: Data from 1816 patients were included; the median age was 51 years, 12% were female, and 14% were experiencing unstable housing/homelessness. The adjusted odds of VS increased 1.34 fold following institution of the multicomponent strategies (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.46). In the ITS analysis, the odds of VS continuously increased 1.05 fold per month over the post-intervention period (95% CI, 1.01-1.08). Among PLWH who previously experienced homelessness and successfully received housing support, the odds of VS were 1.94-fold higher (95% CI, 1.05-3.59). The 1-year LTFU rate was 2.8 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 2.2-3.5). CONCLUSIONS: The VS rate increased following institution of the multicomponent strategies, with a lower LFTU rate compared with prior years. Maintaining in-person care for underserved patients, with flexible telemedicine options, along with provision of social services and permanent expansion of housing programs, will be needed to support VS among underserved populations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evaluation of HIV treatment outcomes with reduced frequency of clinical encounters and antiretroviral treatment refills: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Global HIV treatment programs have sought to lengthen the interval between clinical encounters for people living with HIV (PLWH) who are established on antiretroviral treatment (ART) to reduce the burden of seeking care and to decongest health facilities. The overall effect of reduced visit frequency on HIV treatment outcomes is however unknown. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of implementation strategies that reduce the frequency of clinical appointments and ART refills for PLWH established on ART. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched databases​ between 1 January 2010 and 9 November 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared reduced (6- to 12-monthly) clinical consultation or ART refill appointment frequency to 3- to 6-monthly appointments for patients established on ART. We assessed methodological quality and real-world relevance, and used Mantel-Haenszel methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals for retention, viral suppression, and mortality. We evaluated heterogeneity quantitatively and qualitatively, and overall evidence certainty using GRADE. Searches yielded 3,955 records, resulting in 10 studies (6 RCTs, 3 observational studies, and 1 study contributing observational and RCT data) representing 15 intervention arms with 33,599 adults (≥16 years) in 8 sub-Saharan African countries. Reduced frequency clinical consultations occurred at health facilities, while reduced frequency ART refills were delivered through facility or community pharmacies and adherence groups. Studies were highly pragmatic, except for some study settings and resources used in RCTs. Among studies comparing reduced clinical consultation frequency (6- or 12-monthly) to 3-monthly consultations, there appeared to be no difference in retention (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.04, p = 0.682, 8 studies, low certainty), and this finding was consistent across 6- and 12-monthly consultation intervals and delivery strategies. Viral suppression effect estimates were markedly influenced by under-ascertainment of viral load outcomes in intervention arms, resulting in inconclusive evidence. There was similarly insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.75-1.66, p = 0.592, 6 studies, very low certainty). For ART refill frequency, there appeared to be little to no difference in retention (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98-1.06, p = 0.473, 4 RCTs, moderate certainty) or mortality (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.63-3.35, p = 0.382, 4 RCTs, low certainty) between 6-monthly and 3-monthly visits. Similar to the analysis for clinical consultations, although viral suppression appeared to be better in 3-monthly arms, effect estimates were markedly influence by under-ascertainment of viral load outcomes in intervention arms, resulting in overall inclusive evidence. This systematic review was limited by the small number of studies available to compare 12- versus 6-monthly clinical consultations, insufficient data to compare implementation strategies, and lack of evidence for children, key populations, and low- and middle-income countries outside of sub-Saharan Africa. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this synthesis, extending clinical consultation intervals to 6 or 12 months and ART dispensing intervals to 6 months appears to result in similar retention to 3-month intervals, with less robust conclusions for viral suppression and mortality. Future research should ensure complete viral load outcome ascertainment, as well as explore mechanisms of effect, outcomes in other populations, and optimum delivery and monitoring strategies to ensure widespread applicability of reduced frequency visits across settings.