ABSTRACT
Background: The WHO recommends enhanced adherence counseling (EAC) before regimen switch for HIV-positive, antiretroviral therapy (ART)-treated individuals with non-suppressed viral loads (VL). However, there is a paucity of data, especially within a clinical trial setting, on the determinants of viral suppression (VS) following EAC among those failing ART. We thus evaluated predictors of VS among adults failing ART who had undergone EAC in the VISEND clinical trial. Methods: Our trial is a randomized 144 week open label non-inferiority study with adults failing (VL≧ 1000 copies/mL) ART of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), lamivudine (3TC) plus efavirenz (EFV) or nevirapine (NVP), switched to 1) TDF,3TC,DTG or 2) tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), emtricitabine (FTC),DTG or 3) lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or atazanavir/r (ATV/r), zidovudine (ZDV),3TC. Viral loads and other biomarkers were collected at weeks 12, 24, 48, 72, 96 and 144. Adults with VL≧ 1000 copies/mL at each of these time points underwent EAC involving 3 sessions over a period of 3 months according to existing guidelines. We calculated proportions of individuals who achieved VS post EAC and analyzed factors (demographic and clinical) independently associated with VS post EAC. Using multivariable log regression models, associations were analyzed as crude risk ratios (CRR) and adjusted risk ratios (ARR). Results: The overall VS rates following EAC among individuals with virologic failure was 66%;broken down as follows: TAF,FTC,DTG (78%), TDF,3TC,DTG (71%), ZDV,3TC,ATV/r (62%), and ZDV,3TC,LPV/r (53%). Compared to adults with no formal education, those having primary (ARR 1.55 [1.32-1.81], P<0.001) or secondary level education (ARR 1.93 [1.65-2.27], P<0.001) were more likely to achieve VS. Those less likely to suppress post EAC were individuals on ART for > 5 years (ARR 0.75 [0.75-0.75], P<0.001), VL > 10,000 copies/mL at time of failure (0.48 [0.48-0.48], P<0.001), presence of comorbidities (ARR 0.77 [0.66-0.90], P=0.001) and those taking concomitant medications (ARR 0.67 [0.58-0.79], P<0.001). Having suffered from COVID-19 infection had no association with VS post EAC (ARR 0.59 [0.22-1.58], P=0.30). Consistent results are in Table 1. Conclusion: In the VISEND trial, EAC led to VS rates near the WHO target of 70% with disparities in outcomes according to gender, education, and other factors. There is a need to routinely incorporate EAC into clinical trials and practice before regimen switch in order to maximize outcomes.
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.