Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Finding, treating and retaining persons with HIV in a high HIV prevalence and high treatment coverage country: Results from the Botswana Combination Prevention Project

  • Pamela Bachanas ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    pbachanas@cdc.gov

    Affiliation Division of Global HIV/AIDS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Mary Grace Alwano,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Global HIV/AIDS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Gaborone, Botswana

  • Refeletswe Lebelonyane,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Botswana Ministry of Health and Wellness, Gaborone, Botswana

  • Lisa Block,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Northrup Grumman, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Stephanie Behel,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Global HIV/AIDS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Elliot Raizes,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Global HIV/AIDS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Gene Ussery,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Software, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Northrup Grumman, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Huisheng Wang,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Northrup Grumman, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Faith Ussery,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Global HIV/AIDS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Molly Pretorius Holme,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Connie Sexton,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Global HIV/AIDS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Sherri Pals,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Global HIV/AIDS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Arielle Lasry,

    Roles Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Global HIV/AIDS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Lisetta Del Castillo,

    Roles Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Global HIV/AIDS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Gaborone, Botswana

  • Shannon Hader,

    Roles Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation UNAIDS, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Shahin Lockman,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, Botswana Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership, Gaborone, Botswana, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Naomi Bock,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Global HIV/AIDS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  •  [ ... ],
  • Janet Moore

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Division of Global HIV/AIDS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • [ view all ]
  • [ view less ]

Finding, treating and retaining persons with HIV in a high HIV prevalence and high treatment coverage country: Results from the Botswana Combination Prevention Project

  • Pamela Bachanas, 
  • Mary Grace Alwano, 
  • Refeletswe Lebelonyane, 
  • Lisa Block, 
  • Stephanie Behel, 
  • Elliot Raizes, 
  • Gene Ussery, 
  • Huisheng Wang, 
  • Faith Ussery, 
  • Molly Pretorius Holme
PLOS
x

Abstract

Introduction

The scale-up of Universal Test and Treat has resulted in reductions in HIV morbidity, mortality and incidence. However, healthcare system and personal challenges have impacted the levels of treatment coverage achieved. We implemented interventions to improve linkage to care, retention, viral load (VL) coverage and service delivery, and describe the HIV care cascade over the course of the Botswana Combination Prevention Project (BCPP) study.

Methods

BCPP was designed to evaluate the impact of prevention interventions on HIV incidence in 30 communities in Botswana. We followed a longitudinal cohort of newly identified and known HIV-positive persons not on antiretroviral therapy (ART) identified through community-based testing activities through BCPP and referred with appointments to local HIV clinics in 15 intervention communities. Those who did not keep the first or follow-up appointments were tracked and traced through phone and home contacts. Improvements to service delivery models in the intervention clinics were also implemented.

Results

A total of 3,657 newly identified or HIV-positive persons not on ART were identified and referred to their local HIV clinic; 90% (3,282/3,657) linked to care and of those, 93% (3,066/3,282) initiated treatment. Near the end of the study, 221 persons remained >90 days late for appointments or missing. Tracing efforts identified 54/3,066 (2%) persons who initiated treatment but died, and 106/3,066 (3%) persons were located and returned to treatment. At study end, 61/3,066 (2%) persons remained missing and were never reached. Overall, 2,951 (98%) persons living with HIV (PLHIV) who initiated treatment were still alive, retained in care and still receiving ART out of the 3,001 persons alive at the end of the study. Of those on ART, 2,854 (97%) had current VL results and 2,784 (98%) of those were virally suppressed at study end.

Conclusions

This study achieved high rates of linkage, treatment initiation, retention and VL coverage and suppression in a cohort of newly identified and known PLHIV not on ART. Tracking and tracing interventions effectively identified those persons who needed more resource intensive follow-up. The interventions implemented to improve service delivery and data quality may have also contributed to high linkage and retention rates.

Clinical trial number: NCT01965470.

Introduction

The widespread scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for persons living with HIV (PLHIV) in low- and middle-income countries has contributed to reductions in morbidity, mortality and new HIV infections [1]. However, failure to engage all PLHIV in care and retain them on treatment due to personal (e.g., disclosure or privacy concerns) or healthcare system (e.g., frequent appointments, long wait times) challenges have impacted the levels of treatment coverage achieved [27]. Recent studies on Universal Test and Treat (UTT) have highlighted the importance of linking and retaining clients on treatment and providing client-centered care to reach the high levels of treatment coverage and viral suppression needed for epidemic control [812].

The HIV care cascade has been used widely to assess progress in reaching the UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets [13], as well as to identify gaps in HIV programs [14]. The cascade describes the benchmark stages along the pathway to viral suppression including HIV testing, knowledge of HIV status, linkage to care, ART initiation, retention in care, and viral load (VL) suppression [15]. Tracking individuals through the cascade longitudinally provides an accurate assessment of loss at each step, informs implementation of targeted interventions to address identified gaps, and enables assessment of uptake of intervention strategies and progress toward 90-90-90 goals [7, 1621].

With the scale-up of testing and treatment in recent years, the need to strengthen linkage and retention support to PLHIV and address weaknesses in healthcare delivery systems has become more evident [22]. Strategies that track and trace persons who fail to link to care or are late for clinic visits or drug pick-ups have shown success in returning some patients to care and documenting outcomes on others [5, 23, 24]. Reducing the number of clinic visits, rapid or same-day ART initiation, and supportive interventions including peer counseling have also been shown to reduce losses along the cascade [2527]. However, these interventions have not yet been implemented at scale in most settings in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Botswana was one of the first countries in Africa to offer free ART to its citizens beginning in 2002 and to implement UTT in 2016 and has made significant progress scaling-up these key interventions [28]. Yet, Botswana has the second highest HIV prevalence in the world (estimated at 22% of adults) [29]. The Botswana Combination Prevention Project (BCPP) implemented a combination of community-based HIV testing initiatives and expanded ART provision in 15 intervention communities. Interventions to improve linkage to care, retention, VL coverage, service delivery and monitoring of the HIV care cascade were also implemented. The aim of this paper is to describe the HIV care cascade in a longitudinal cohort over the course of the study, documenting individual level outcomes along each step. Interventions implemented to achieve and sustain these outcomes are also described.

Methods

BCPP was a cluster-randomized trial that evaluated the impact of prevention interventions on population-level HIV incidence in 30 communities. A full description of the study design is available elsewhere [28]. The sub-analyses reported here are from a longitudinal cohort of PLHIV not on ART identified through community testing activities in the 15 intervention communities. The interventions were delivered in government clinics by the Ministry of Health and Wellness (MoHW) staff and local implementing partners and took place from October 2013 through March 2018 (Fig 1). The intervention clinics were in rural or peri-urban communities with an average size of 6,000. All persons 16 years or older who were newly identified as HIV-positive or were HIV-positive but not on ART identified through community testing activities in the intervention communities were eligible for study interventions, if they were community residents (spent at least three nights/month in the community) and Botswana citizens or spouses of citizens. Most Botswana citizens have a unique individual identification number (Omang) issued by the government which is used by the healthcare system.

HIV testing

With the goal of 100% of PLHIV in the community knowing their status, home-based and mobile HIV testing and case-finding of known PLHIV were conducted with persons >16 years over the course of the study. Individuals who agreed to participate completed a brief demographic questionnaire (standard questionnaire administered prior to testing by the community partner); persons who knew their HIV-positive status and had documentation were identified and those who did not have documentation of being HIV-positive or did not know their status and accepted HIV testing services provided verbal consent for testing. Verbal consent for completing the demographic questionnaire and HIV testing is the standard in Botswana, and the age of consent for testing is 16. Therefore, written consent was not required and verbal consent was documented by the interviewer/counselor on the electronic version of the form. Point-of-care fingerstick testing was conducted according to the Botswana national testing algorithm. Samples from each community were retested in the reference laboratory to provide quality control for the field-based HIV rapid testing [30]. The first community used the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using the Vironostika Uniform II Plus O (bioMerieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France), and subsequent communities used the Bio-Rad Genetic Systems HIV-1/HIV-2 PLUS O EIA (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Redmond, WA, USA) in accordance with the Botswana national HIV testing algorithm. In addition, starting in June 2016, all persons referred with a positive HIV test underwent verification HIV rapid testing at the clinic.

Linkage to HIV care and ART

All persons newly identified or known HIV-positive but not on ART identified through community testing activities were given referral forms with specific appointment dates at their local MoHW clinics (appointments are not a usual practice in Botswana). A Linkage Coordinator at each local MoHW HIV clinic sent SMS appointment reminders the day before their appointment. Using participants’ names and Omang numbers, Linkage Coordinators tracked participants through the MoHW’s electronic medical records systems (EMRs) and Clinic Registration Log to determine if they kept their scheduled appointment. Persons who were seen for an HIV service at their local clinic were considered linked. Participants who did not keep their appointment were traced by a community-based peer counselor through alternating phone and home contacts and were provided support with issues such as disclosure and navigating the clinic.

For participants who did not link at their local clinic, searches were conducted using the Omang number in the EMRs and laboratory database to determine if they were receiving HIV services at a clinic outside their community of residence. When participants were found at a clinic outside their local community, a nurse from the clinic in the participant’s community of residence called and verified that the participant was currently enrolled in care and on ART. All persons who were verified on ART at another clinic were counted as linked for analysis purposes.

ART initiation

From 2013–2016, PLHIV were eligible for ART when their CD4<350 cells/μL according to national guidelines. However, study participants in the intervention communities were eligible for early treatment through BCPP if they had CD4>350 –<500 cells/μL or CD4>500 cells/μL and VL >10,000 copies/ml. From mid-2016, all PLHIV were eligible for ART regardless of CD4 count, as the government of Botswana adopted UTT.

Rapid (within 7 days) and same-day ART initiation [31] was also started in 2016 at the intervention sites with patients who were clinically stable (WHO stage I or II and no opportunistic diseases) starting treatment the day of diagnosis or their first clinic visit. The implementation of Rapid/Same-day start included reducing the number of pre-ART visits, not waiting for the return of baseline labs before initiating treatment and calling back patients with abnormal lab values. Stable patients (virally suppressed, no opportunistic infections, and keeping appointments) who were on ART longer than 12 months were also eligible for multi-month dispensing and received 2–3 months of medications per pick-up, as opposed to the standard monthly medication pick-up.

Viral load testing

Viral load testing was conducted at three months post-ART-initiation and every six months thereafter. Viral suppression was defined as <400 copies/ml. Interventions such as contacting persons with late or missing VL tests and rescheduling appointments, ensuring VL results were entered in patients’ charts and EMRs, and reducing sample transport time to the lab and turn-around-time of results were implemented to improve VL coverage.

Retention in care/on treatment

Linkage coordinators and clinic nurses reviewed weekly and monthly clinic reports generated by the EMRs of PLHIV who missed clinic appointments, drug pick-ups or VL tests or who were lost to follow up (LTFU; missing from the clinic >90 days). Tracking and tracing through phone calls by clinic staff and counselors and home visits by counselors for those unable to be reached by phone were conducted to reschedule appointments and support re-enrollment/re-initiation on treatment when indicated. Tracing missing PLHIV through EMRs and other data systems was also conducted, which included finding many persons still active on ART through data cleaning efforts, correcting unique identifiers, and locating patients on treatment at other outside clinics. Using the Omang and line lists, patients who were still active in care but had not been entered into EMRs or lab systems correctly were identified by triangulating patient charts, EMR and labs. Near the end of the study, there was an intensified effort to track LTFU patients which included all of the above, contacting family members and documenting deaths and LTFU. This required clinic staff and Linkage Coordinators dedicating focused time and effort on tracing activities.

Data collection and statistics

All questionnaires and results of HIV tests were collected on encrypted handheld tablets, which were synchronized daily with the research database. Participants were tracked through the HIV care cascade and de-duplicated using the Omang. Whether participants kept appointments or received HIV services, as well as clinical indicators such as treatment initiation and VL, were abstracted from the clinics’ EMRs. These data were merged with the questionnaire data collected in the community for a continuous record on each participant from identification through retention on ART.

SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for all statistical analyses. SAS PROC GLIMMIX was used to test for association between sociodemographic, new or known HIV-positive status and linkage to care. Models included a random effect for community to adjust standard errors for within-community correlation, and all candidate variables were included in univariate and multiple regression models. P-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant, and unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence limits were estimated.

Ethics

The study was approved by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Institutional Review Board (Protocol #6475) and the Botswana Health Research and Development Committee (Institutional Review Board of the Botswana MoHW HPDME 13/18/1).

Results

Identification of PLHIV

From October 2013 to December 2017, 61,655 people with unique identifiers were assessed for HIV status (were tested or provided documentation of HIV-positive status or of HIV-negative test within past 3 months) in the 15 intervention communities. Twenty-two percent (13,328/61,655) of the persons assessed were HIV-positive; 26% (8,981/33,961) of women and 16% (4,347/27,694) of men. Of the 13,328 persons identified with HIV, 85% (11,288) already knew their status and had documentation thereof, and 15% (2,040) were newly identified through testing in BCPP. Persons newly testing HIV-positive (n = 2,040) and persons knowing their HIV-positive status but who were not on ART (n = 1,617) resulted in 3,657 or 27% of all 13,328 PLHIV identified through BCPP. These 3,657 PLHIV were referred to their local HIV clinic for ART initiation.

Demographics of PLHIV referred to treatment

Of the 3,657 referred for treatment, 61% were female. Fifteen percent of referred persons were between 16 and 24 years of age, 34% between 25 and 34, and 51% between 35 and 64 (Table 1). Fifty-six percent (2,040/3,657) were newly identified as HIV-positive during the study and 44% (1,617/3,657) knew their HIV-positive status prior to the study but were not on ART. Sixty-six percent of persons referred reported secondary or higher education, and 45% were employed. Most people (73%) were single or never married, 24% were married or co-habiting, and 3% divorced or separated.

Linkage to care of persons referred to treatment

Of the 3,657 people referred to treatment, 3,282 (90%) linked to care (i.e., received an HIV-related service at an MoHW clinic). The 3,282 persons who linked to care were compared to the characteristics (i.e. sex, age, education, employment, new or known HIV-positive status and marital status) of the 375 (10%) persons referred to treatment who never linked (Table 2). All factors were significantly related to linkage in the univariate analyses; however, age was no longer a significant predictor in the multivariate analysis. A lower percentage of males (86%) than females (92%) linked to care (p < .0001). A lower percentage of persons with a secondary or higher education linked (88%) than did persons with only primary education (94%; p < .0001), and a lower percentage of persons who were employed (87%) compared to those who were not employed (92%; p = .0066). A lower percentage of PLHIV who were newly identified linked (88%) than did those who already knew their HIV-positive status (92%; p = .0061). In addition, married or cohabitating persons were less likely to link than single people (p = .0237). Consistent with these findings, the most frequently self-reported reasons for not keeping appointments by persons who were seen by counselors during tracing but never linked included (from most frequently reported to less) 1) being too busy to attend clinic, 2) being unable to miss school/work, 3) lack of disclosure to family/sex partner, 4) receiving care/treatment at clinic outside study community, 5) not ready to accept HIV status, and 6) afraid of seeing family or community members at clinic.

thumbnail
Table 2. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the association of sociodemographic variables with linkage to care.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250211.t002

Of the 3,282 (90%) PLHIV who linked to care, 55% (1,809) kept the appointment in the clinic in their community of residence, and 34% (1099) linked later at that clinic. Eleven percent (374) of referred persons linked to care at MoHW clinics outside their community of residence. For participants who missed their first clinic appointment, an average of two home visits or telephone contacts were made by the linkage counselor before participants were seen at their respective clinics.

ART initiation and retention among persons linking to care

Ninety-three percent (3,066) of the 3,282 persons who linked to care initiated treatment, which represents 84% of those referred initiated treatment. Of the 216 persons who linked but did not initiate treatment, 9 (4%) died before initiating ART. During the course of the study, 221 persons were missing and/or >90 days late picking up their ART. Tracing efforts identified 54/3,066 (2%) persons who had initiated treatment but died, and 61/3,066 (2%) persons who were never reached/located and remained LTFU at study end. One hundred and six (3%) persons were located and returned to treatment (Fig 2). Overall, 2,951 (98%) PLHIV who initiated treatment were still alive, retained in care and receiving ART at the end of the study out of the 3,012 persons alive at the end of the study.

thumbnail
Fig 2. Linkage, ART initiation and retention outcomes among persons referred for care and treatment in intervention communities.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250211.g002

Viral load testing and viral suppression

Among the 2,951 patients retained on ART, 2,854 (97%) had a current VL test at study end. During the study, 862 of the 2,951 people retained on ART were missing current VLs. Of those, 765 patients (88%) were successfully traced and returned to the clinic for updated VL testing, or their laboratory records were obtained with a current VL result. Of the 2,854 who had a current VL test at study end, 2,784 (98%) were virally suppressed. With an assumption that the 97 persons without a VL test were not virally suppressed, the VL suppression rate was 94% at study end.

Clinical cascade results in the referral cohort

In summary, we found that of the 3,657 PLHIV who were referred for treatment, 3,282 (90%) linked to care, 3,066 (93%) of those initiated ART, and 2,951 (98%) of those who initiated ART were still on treatment at the end of the study out of those who were still alive. In addition, 2,854 (97%) of those still on ART had current VL results and 2,784 (98%) of those were virally suppressed at study end. Thus, of the 3,592 HIV-positive persons who were referred for treatment through BCPP and were alive at study end, 2,784 (78%) were documented to be on ART and had undetectable HIV-1 RNA (Fig 3).

thumbnail
Fig 3. Longitudinal HIV care cascade among PLHIV not on ART and referred to treatment in 15 intervention communities.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250211.g003

Discussion

Over the course of the BCPP study, we followed a longitudinal cohort of 3,657 newly identified or known HIV-positive persons who were not on treatment. Individual level tracking using a unique identifier allowed us to trace individuals through each step of the cascade to identify gaps and target interventions where needed to improve uptake and retention. Overall, 78% of referred persons who initiated ART and remained alive were retained and virally suppressed at study end.

Ninety percent of newly identified and known persons living with HIV not on ART linked to care, which is much higher than linkage rates from most community testing studies [4, 5]. A small proportion (11%) of those who linked were found on treatment at clinics outside their community of residence through EMR and laboratory systems. There are no known published studies that have tracked and verified referred persons obtaining care and treatment at non-referred clinics [5]. Those who never linked were more likely to be younger, males, newly identified HIV-positive, employed, and have more education. These findings and others [3, 32, 33] suggest that this group may need to be targeted for interventions at the time of referral and may need specific interventions targeted to their circumstances. For example, community and workplace models of ART service delivery may be more effective for working persons who cannot attend facilities during clinic hours or for persons with stigma or privacy concerns [3436]. It is also possible that some of the employed individuals were receiving treatment from private doctors, but we were unable to obtain documentation of private care.

High rates of treatment initiation and retention on treatment were observed in this study. Interventions such as Rapid/Same-day ART initiation, 2–3 month dispensing of anti-retrovirals (ARVs) and 6-month clinic consultations likely contributed to these results. For example, Rapid/Same-day ART start reduced the number of pre-ART visits (from an average of 3–4 to 1) for adherence counseling and allowed initiation to occur before baseline lab measures were returned, which significantly reduced time from referral to initiation [37]. Six-month consultations and 2–3 month dispensing of ARVs also reduced the number of clinic visits, which was likely more convenient and less costly for patients. Rapid/Same-day start and other differentiated models of service delivery have been shown to increase the number of PLHIV initiating ART and to improve or maintain high rates of retention on ART [27, 35, 38, 39]. Other interventions which improved service delivery, including efforts to track and reschedule those due for VL testing and reduce turn-around-time of VL results from the lab may have contributed to the strong VL coverage and suppression rates. A small proportion (7%) of persons who linked did not initiate treatment; these individuals could not be identified as on ART through the MoHW EMRs or data systems.

Tracking and tracing efforts were implemented throughout the study to find those persons who never linked, linked but did not initiate treatment, or were late for appointments, drug pick-ups, VL tests or were LTFU. These efforts resulted in finding and returning to care or documenting outcomes of most of the persons who were late, missing or lost, leaving only 61 persons LTFU at the end of the study. We identified data quality issues that impacted retention rates, including incomplete records, un-entered data from registers/paper files, and data entry errors. The true number of patients lost in this study was much smaller once electronic tracing and data cleaning were completed, so the burden of people who required more resource-intensive tracing by phone or home visits was a small proportion of those initially appearing as LTFU. Tracking and tracing those LTFU in other studies showed similar findings; many persons are still active in care/on treatment but not properly documented and a smaller number are truly lost [23, 24]. Together, these studies suggest that apparent low retention rates may be an overestimate of the true number of persons out of care/off treatment. In addition, as countries adopt unique identifiers, it will be easier to locate and document persons attending other clinics. These changes will result in more accurate retention estimates and indicate which interventions are needed to return patients to treatment.

Many of the interventions implemented in this study are becoming standard of care in MoHW clinics serving PLHIV in sub-Saharan Africa; implementation and effectiveness should be monitored closely. The main challenges we observed when scaling up these interventions were obtaining accurate data from the clinics, as we encountered issues with poor data quality including poor documentation of patient data, lack of data entry into electronic data systems from registers and paper forms, and data entry errors. Resource limited settings often contend with issues such as power outages, broken equipment, and limited staff to keep up with the workload. We added an additional staff person to the study clinics to address these issues and ensure that all patient encounters were documented and entered correctly. However, additional efforts were required throughout the study to assist with data cleaning to ensure outcomes were correct and to find missing patients or data. As country programs scale-up these interventions, sufficient staff and resources for data management, monitoring and evaluation should be considered as necessary components of the interventions.

There were several limitations to this study including the lack of a comparison group. This study design had rolling enrollment over time, which prohibited us from following all persons in the cohort for the same amount of time. In addition, the study was conducted in peri-urban and rural communities, so it is not clear how generalizable these findings are to urban areas.

Conclusions

This study achieved high rates of linkage, treatment initiation, retention and VL suppression in a cohort of newly identified and known PLHIV not on ART referred for treatment from community testing. Individually linked data allowed us to see where losses were occurring along the clinical cascade and where and to whom to target interventions over the course of the study. A small percent of PLHIV needed support with linkage and retention and tracking and tracing interventions were effective for identifying those who needed more resource intensive follow-up. These results were achieved in MoHW public clinics with support for strengthening service delivery models; results can be generalized to settings with high HIV prevalence and high levels of testing and treatment coverage. Ensuring these gaps are addressed with feasible and effective interventions is critical for retaining PLHIV on treatment and reducing new infections.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the participants in the BCPP study, the community leadership in the participating communities, and each of our partners who made this study possible (Botswana MoHW, Tebelopele Counseling and Testing Center, Botswana-Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health). They are grateful to the field staff for their dedication and commitment.

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the funding agencies. Preliminary results were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Seattle, WA, USA, 4–7 March, 2019 and the International AIDS Conference (IAS), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 23–27 July, 2018.

References

  1. 1. UNAIDS. UNAIDS Data 2019. UNAIDS. Geneva. 2020. (https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/2019-UNAIDS-data_en.pdf, accessed on May 14, 2020.)
  2. 2. UNAIDS. Miles to Go: Closing gaps, breaking barriers, righting injustices. Geneva, Switzerland. 2018. http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/miles-to-go_en.
  3. 3. Sabapathy K, Hensen B, Varsaneux O, Floyd S, Fidler S, Hayes R. The cascade of care following community-based detection of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa—A systematic review with 90-90-90 targets in sight. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(7):e0200737. pmid:30052637
  4. 4. Ruzagira E, Baisley K, Kamali A, Biraro S, Grosskurth H for the Working Group on Linkage to Care. Linkage to HIV care after home-based HIV counseling and testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Tropical Medicine and International Health. 2017;2(7):807–821.
  5. 5. Sharma M, Ying R, Tarr G, Barnabas . Systematic review and meta-analysis of community and facility-based HIV testing to address linkage to care gaps in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature. 2015;528,S77–S85. pmid:26633769
  6. 6. Bulsara SM, Wainberg ML, Newton-John TR. Predictors of adult retention in HIV care: a systematic review. AIDS Behav. 2018;22:752–764. pmid:27990582
  7. 7. Hickey MD, Odeny TA, Petersen ML, Neilands TB, Padian N, Ford N et al. Specification of implementation interventions to address the cascade of HIV care and treatment in resource-limited settings: a systematic review. Implementation Science. 2017; 12(1):102. pmid:28784155
  8. 8. Havlir D, Lockman D, Ayles H, Larmarange J, Chamie G, Gaolathe T, et al. What do the Universal Test and Treat trials tell us about the path to epidemic control. Journal of the International AIDS Society. 2020;23:e25455. pmid:32091179
  9. 9. Ayieko J, Petersen ML, Charlebois ED, Brown LB, Clark TD, Kwarisiima D et al. A patient-centered multi-component strategy for accelerated linkage to care following community-wide HIV testing in rural Kenya and Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;80:414–422. pmid:30807481
  10. 10. Sabapathy K, Mubekapi-Musadaidzwa C, Mulubwa C, Schaap A, Hoddinott G, Stangl A, et al. Predictors of timely linkage-to-ART within the universal test and treat HPTN 071 (POPART) trial in Zambia and South Africa: findings from a nested case-control study. Journal of the International AIDS Society. 2017;20:e25037. pmid:29251433
  11. 11. Makhema J, Wirth KE, Pretorius Holme M, Gaolathe T, Mmalane M, Kadima E, et al. Universal testing, expanded treatment, and incidence of HIV infection in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(3):230–42. pmid:31314967
  12. 12. Iwuji CC, Orne-Gliemann J, Larmarange J, Balestre E, Thiebaut R, Tanser F, et al. Universal test and treat and the HIV epidemic in rural South Africa: a phase 4, open-label, community cluster randomised trial. Lancet HIV. 2018;5(3):e116–25. pmid:29199100
  13. 13. UNAIDS. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. 90–90–90–An ambitious treatment target to help end the AIDS epidemic. [Internet] Geneva, Switzerland; 2014 [cited 2020 May 13]. https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/90-90-90_en.pdf
  14. 14. WHO. Global update on HIV treatment 2013: results, impact, and opportunities. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
  15. 15. Gardner EM, McLees MP, Steiner JF, Del Rio C, Burman WJ. The spectrum of engagement in HIV care and its relevance to test-and-treat strategies for prevention of HIV infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2011; 52:793–800. pmid:21367734
  16. 16. Jose S, Delpech V, Howarth A, Burns F, Hill T, Porter K, et al. A continuum of HIV care describing mortality and loss to follow-up: a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet HIV. 2018;5:e302. pmid:29893243
  17. 17. Haber N, Tanser F, Bor J, Naidu K, Mutevedzi T, Herbst K, et al. From HIV infection to therapeutic response: a population-based longitudinal HIV cascade-of-care study in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. Lancet HIV. 2017; 4(5): e223–e230. pmid:28153470
  18. 18. Kranzer K, Govindasamy D, Ford N, Johnston V, Lawn SD. Quantifying and addressing losses along the continuum of care for people living with HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. J Int AIDS Soc. 2012; 1517:383. pmid:23199799
  19. 19. Mugglin C, Estill J, Wandeler G, Bender N, Egger M, Gsponer T, et al. Loss to programme between HIV diagnosis and initiation of antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis. Trop Med Int Health. 2012; 17:1509–20. pmid:22994151
  20. 20. Rosen S, Fox MP. Retention in HIV care between testing and treatment in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2011; 8:e1001056. pmid:21811403
  21. 21. Fox MP, Rosen S. Patient retention in antiretroviral therapy programs up to three years on treatment in sub-Saharan Africa, 2007–2009: systematic review. Trop Med Int Health. 2010; 15(suppl 1):1–15. pmid:20586956
  22. 22. Grimsrud A, Bygrave H, Doherty M, Ehrenkranz P, Ellman T, Ferris R, et al. Reimagining HIV service delivery: the role of differentiated care from prevention to suppression. J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19(1):21484. Published 2016 Dec 1. pmid:27914186
  23. 23. Sikazwe I, Eshun-Wilson I, Sikombe K, Czaicki N, Somwe P, Mody A, et al. Retention and viral suppression in a cohort of HIV patients in Zambia: regionally representative estimates using a multi-stage-sampling-based approach. 2019. PLoS Med 16(5): e1002811. pmid:31150380
  24. 24. Geng EH, Odeny TA, Lyamuya R, Nakiwogga-Muwanga A, Diero L, Bwana M, et al. Retention in care and patient-reported reasons for undocumented transfer or stopping care among HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy in Eastern Africa: application of a sampling-based approach. Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 62(7):935–44. pmid:26679625
  25. 25. Maughan-Brown B, Kuo C, Galárraga O, Smith P, Lurie MN, Bekker LG, et al. Stumbling Blocks at the Clinic: Experiences of Seeking HIV Treatment and Care in South Africa. AIDS Behav 2018; 22(3): 765–73. pmid:28815325
  26. 26. Ahmed S, Autrey J, Katz IT, Fox M, Rosen S, Onoya D, et al. Why do people living with HIV not initiate treatment? A systematic review of qualitative evidence from low- and middle-income countries. Soc Sci Med 2018; 213: 72–84. pmid:30059900
  27. 27. Rosen S, Maskew M, Fox MP, Nyoni C, Mongwenyana C, Malete G, et al. Initiating Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV at a Patient’s First Clinic Visit: The RapIT Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS Med 2016; 13(5): e1002015. pmid:27163694
  28. 28. Gaolathe T, Wirth KE, Holme MP, Makhema J, Moyo S, Chakalisa U, et al. Botswana’s progress toward achieving the 2020 UNAIDS 90-90-90 antiretroviral therapy and virological suppression goals: a population-based survey. Lancet HIV. 2016;3(5):e221–30. pmid:27126489
  29. 29. UNAIDS. Ending AIDS: Progress towards the 90-90-90. Geneva, Switzerland: UNAIDS; 2017.
  30. 30. Alwano MG, Bachanas P, Block L, Roland M, Sento B, Behel S, et al. Increasing knowledge of HIV status in a country with high HIV testing coverage: Results from the Botswana Combination Prevention Project. PLOS ONE. 2019; Nov 25;14(11):e0225076. eCollection 2019.PLoS One. 2019. pmid:31765394
  31. 31. World Health Organization. Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection: recommendations for a public health approach—Second edition. Geneva; 2016. https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/arv/arv-2016/en/ (accessed May 14, 2020).
  32. 32. Mavegram B, Pharr J, Cruz P, Ezeanolue E. Effective interventions to improve young adults’ linkage to care in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. AIDS Care. 2017;29 (10):1198–1204. pmid:28325077
  33. 33. Naik R, Doherty T, Jackson D, Tabana H, Swanevelder S, Thea DM, et al. Linkage to Care following a home-based HIV counseling and testing intervention in rural South Africa. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18:19843. pmid:26058983
  34. 34. MacPherson P, Lalloo D, Webb E, Maheswaran , Choko A, Makombe S, et al. Effect of optional home initiation of HIV care following self-testing on antiretroviral therapy initiation among adults in Malawi: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312 (4):372–379. pmid:25038356
  35. 35. Labhardt N, Ringera I, Lejone T, Klimkait T, Muhairwe J, Amstutz A, et al. Effect of offering same-day ART vs usual health facility referral during home-based HIV testing on linkage to care and viral supporession among adults with HIV in Lesotho: The CASCADE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(110):1103–1112. pmid:29509839
  36. 36. Rich M, Miller A, Niyigena P, Franke M, Niyonzima J, Socci A. Excellent clinical outcomes and high retention in adults in a community-based HIV treatment program in rural Rwanda. JAIDS. 2012;59(3), e35–e42. pmid:22156912
  37. 37. Lebelonyane R, Bachanas P, Block L, Ussery F, Abrams W, Roland M, et al. Rapid antiretroviral therapy initiation in the Botswana Combination Prevention Project: a quasi-experimental before and after study. Lancet HIV. In press. pmid:32763218
  38. 38. Amanyire G, Semitala FC, Namusobya J, Katurama R, Kampiire L, Wallenta J, et al. Effects of a multicomponent intervention to streamline initiation of antiretroviral therapy in Africa: a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Lancet HIV 2016; 3(11): e539–e48. pmid:27658873
  39. 39. Koenig SP, Dorvil N, Dévieux JG, Hedt-Gauthier B, Riviere C, Faustin M, et al. Same-day HIV testing with initiation of antiretroviral therapy versus standard care for persons living with HIV: A randomized unblinded trial. PLoS Med 2017; 14(7): e1002357. pmid:28742880