ABSTRACT
Introduction Timely descriptions of HIV service characteristics and their evolution over time across diverse settings are important for monitoring the scale-up of evidence-based program strategies, understanding the implementation landscape, and examining service delivery factors that influence HIV care outcomes. Methods The International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium undertakes periodic cross-sectional surveys on service availability and care at participating HIV treatment sites to characterize trends and inform the scientific agenda for HIV care and implementation science communities. IeDEA’s 2020 general site assessment survey was developed through a consultative, 18-month process that engaged diverse researchers in identifying content from previous surveys that should be retained for longitudinal analyses and in developing expanded and new content to address gaps in the literature. An iterative review process was undertaken to standardize the format of new survey questions and align them with best practices in survey design and measurement and lessons learned through prior IeDEA site assessment surveys. Results The survey questionnaire developed through this process included eight content domains covered in prior surveys (patient population, staffing and community linkages, HIV testing and diagnosis, new patient care, treatment monitoring and retention, routine HIV care and screening, pharmacy, record-keeping and patient tracing), along with expanded content related to antiretroviral therapy (differentiated service delivery and roll-out of dolutegravir-based regimens); mental health and substance use disorders; care for pregnant/postpartum women and HIV-exposed infants; tuberculosis preventive therapy; and pediatric/adolescent tuberculosis care; and new content related to Kaposi’s sarcoma diagnostics, the impact of COVID-19 on service delivery, and structural barriers to HIV care. The survey was distributed to 238 HIV treatment sites in late 2020, with a 95% response rate. Conclusion IeDEA’s approach for site survey development approach has broad relevance for HIV research networks and other priority health conditions.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Communication Disorders , Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome , Sarcoma, Kaposi , Intellectual Disability , Tuberculosis , COVID-19ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND There is disagreement about the level of asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We conducted a living systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions: 1. amongst people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? 2. Amongst people with SARS-CoV-2 infection who are asymptomatic when diagnosed, what proportion will develop symptoms later? 3. What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is accounted for by people who are either asymptomatic throughout infection, or pre-symptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv and medRxiv using a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature that is updated daily, on 25 March 2020, 20 April 2020 and 10 June 2020. Studies of people with SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed by reverse transcriptase PCR that documented follow-up and symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or modelling studies were included. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with an adapted checklist for case series and the relevance and credibility of modelling studies were assessed using a published checklist. We included a total of 94 studies. The overall estimate of the proportion of people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and remain asymptomatic throughout infection was 20% (95% CI 17-25) with a prediction interval of 3-67% in 79 studies that addressed this review question. There was some evidence that biases in the selection of participants influence the estimate. In seven studies of defined populations screened for SARS-CoV-2 and then followed, 31% (95% CI 26-37%, prediction interval 24-38%) remained asymptomatic. The proportion of people that is pre-symptomatic could not be summarised, owing to heterogeneity. The secondary attack rate was slightly lower in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection than those with symptomatic infection (relative risk 0.35, 95% CI 0.10-1.27). Modelling studies fit to data found a higher proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 infections resulting from transmission from pre-symptomatic individuals than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the review include that most included studies were not designed to estimate the proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and were at risk of selection biases, we did not consider the possible impact of false negative RT-PCR results, which would underestimate the proportion of asymptomatic infections, and that the database does not include all sources. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this living systematic review of publications early in the pandemic suggest that most SARS-CoV-2 infections are not asymptomatic throughout the course of infection. The contribution of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic infections to overall SARS-CoV-2 transmission means that combination prevention measures, with enhanced hand hygiene, masks, testing tracing and isolation strategies and social distancing, will continue to be needed.