AIDS:
13 November 2010 - Volume 24 - Issue 17 - p 2741–2742
doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283408735
Editorial Comments
The role of the health system in HIV treatment-as-prevention
Bärnighausen, Tilla,b
Author Information
aAfrica Centre for Health and Population Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Mtubatuba, South Africa
bDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Received 23 August, 2010
Accepted 1 September, 2010
Correspondence to Till Bärnighausen, MD, ScD, MSc, MSc, Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, 02115 MA, USA. Tel: +1 617 379 0372; fax: +1 617 432 6733; e-mail: tbaernig@hsph.harvard.edu
Antiretroviral treatment (ART) of HIV infection has been considered a potential HIV prevention method since the early 1990s [1,2]. The 2009 modeling study by Granich et al. [3], which predicted that universal HIV testing of sexually active adults and immediate initiation of all HIV-infected individuals on ART could substantially reduce HIV incidence, has put treatment-as-prevention firmly on the HIV prevention agenda[4,5]. Trials of treatment-as-prevention will begin this year in New York and Washington, DC, and several research institutions are currently requesting funding to develop and conduct such trials in hyperendemic communities in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [6].
Whereas ART is of proven efficacy in reducing HIV viral load, and heterosexual transmission of HIV has been shown to decline with decreasing viral load [7,8], the effectiveness of treatment-as-prevention at the population level is uncertain because it hinges critically on the ability of the health system to identify HIV-infected persons soon after infection, ensure that HIV-infected people enter medical care and initiate ART immediately after they learn their status, and retain ART patients in medical care for the rest of their lives.
The results of the meta-analysis by Marks et al. [9] in this issue of the journal provide important insights on the entry and retention in HIV medical care of people in the US after they have been diagnosed with HIV infection. These findings are important because they provide baseline estimates against which to assess the need for health systems interventions to ensure the success of treatment-as-prevention strategies. Pooling data from 28 studies, the authors estimate that 69% of HIV-diagnosed persons entered HIV medical care within time intervals after a positive HIV test that ranged from 4 to 12 months across studies. Estimates of retention varied between 69% (in studies defining retention as two or more medical visits over 6 months) and 26% (in studies defining retention as visits in consecutive years over a period of 3–5 years) [9]. The estimated entry and retention fall short of the values used in the study by Granich et al. [6] who assume that ‘all HIV-infected people started ART as soon as they were diagnosed HIV-positive’, ‘8% of people drop out immediately or soon after starting treatment’, and 1.5% of people drop out each year. Future mathematical models should use the figures on entry and retention in HIV medical care estimated by Marks et al. to test the robustness of the finding that treatment-as-prevention will substantially reduce HIV incidence.
While the results in the study by Marks et al. will inform the debate on the feasibility of treatment-as-prevention, they may be biased estimates of entry and retention when HIV testing is universal and people who test HIV-positive are offered immediate initiation on ART. First, the individuals included in the 28 studies synthesized in the meta-analysis might have behaved very differently in the counterfactual context of a treatment-as-prevention program. For instance, it would seem plausible that the offer of immediate ART initiation would increase the motivation to enter medical care, because treatment might be perceived as more valuable than the laboratory tests and vaccinations that are currently offered to HIV-infected individuals who are not yet eligible for ART [10].
Second, the samples in the studies included in the meta-analysis are likely to differ substantially from the total population of HIV-infected individuals, who treatment-as-prevention programs would need to reach. The individuals in the samples either actively sought HIV testing in community settings or were tested as part of the medical work-up in emergency or urgent care, sexually transmitted disease clinics, or general hospital care [9]. These samples are thus unlikely to represent random samples from the total population of the more than one million individuals who have been estimated to be HIV-infected in the US, about one-fifth of whom have never taken an HIV test [11]. Selective participation in HIV testing may also pose a barrier to treatment-as-prevention. In particular, if, as recent studies suggest [12,13], positive HIV status reduces participation in HIV surveys, large proportions of HIV-infected individuals may refuse HIV testing in campaigns conducted as part of treatment-as-prevention programs.
Moreover, it is unlikely that the results from a meta-analysis of studies in the US can be generalized to the hyperendemic settings in SSA, where improved HIV prevention is most urgently needed [4]. HIV-infected populations in the US belong largely to specific risk groups[11], whereas treatment-as-prevention in SSA would need to reach the general population. Marks et al. [9] report that ‘[r]etention in care did not differ appreciably between higher-risk samples (comprised of drug users, persons with mental health problems, recently released from prison, or persons unstably housed) versus more general samples’; however, even the ‘more general samples’ in the study are very different from the general US population. It would seem plausible that general populations are more likely to enter and remain in care than specific groups at high risk of HIV infection, who may experience discrimination when accessing healthcare [14] or may find it difficult to express their needs to health workers [15]. In contrast, patient management systems in SSA may be less effective than the systems in the US in referring people who tested HIV-positive to HIV medical care and in ensuring continuity of care over time [16], leading to entry and retention rates that are lower than those reported in this study.
The article by Marks et al. is an important starting point for future research on health systems interventions to ensure identification, entry into medical care, and long-term retention in care of HIV-infected individuals, as is required if treatment is to succeed as an HIV prevention strategy. The findings of the study suggest that treatment-as-prevention programs cannot rely on current health systems to fulfil these functions adequately, but will need to go hand in hand with systemic changes that improve entry and retention in HIV medical care.
References
1. Musicco M, Lazzarin A, Nicolosi A, Gasparini M, Costigliola P, Arici C, et al. Antiretroviral treatment of men infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reduces the incidence of heterosexual transmission. Italian Study Group on HIV Heterosexual Transmission. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154:1971–1976.
2. Vernazza PL, Eron JJ, Fiscus SA, Cohen MS. Sexual transmission of HIV: infectiousness and prevention. AIDS 1999; 13:155–166.
3. Granich RM, Gilks CF, Dye C, De Cock KM, Williams BG. Universal voluntary HIV testing with immediate antiretroviral therapy as a strategy for elimination of HIV transmission: a mathematical model. Lancet 2009; 373:48–57.
4. Dabis F, Newell ML, Hirschel B. HIV drugs for treatment, and for prevention. Lancet 2010; 375:2056–2057.
5. Dieffenbach CW, Fauci AS. Universal voluntary testing and treatment for prevention of HIV transmission. J Am Med Assoc 2009; 301:2380–2382.
6. Granich R, Crowley S, Vitoria M, Smyth C, Kahn JG, Bennett R, et al. Highly active antiretroviral treatment as prevention of HIV transmission: review of scientific evidence and update. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2010; 5:298–304.
7. Quinn TC, Wawer MJ, Sewankambo N, Serwadda D, Li C, Wabwire-Mangen F, et al. Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Rakai Project Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:921–929.
8. Tovanabutra S, Robison V, Wongtrakul J, Sennum S, Suriyanon V, Kingkeow D, et al. Male viral load and heterosexual transmission of HIV-1 subtype E in northern Thailand. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002; 29:275–283.
9. Marks G, Gardner LI, Craw J, Crepaz N. Entry and retention in medical care among HIV-diagnosed persons in the United States: a meta analysis. AIDS 2010; 24:2665–2678.
10. Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2009.
11. Centers for Disease Control. HIV and AIDS in the United Stateshttp://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm. [Accessed 15 August 2010].
12. Bärnighausen T, Bor J, Wandira-Kazibwe S, Canning D. Correcting HIV prevalence estimates for survey non-participation using Heckman-type selection models. Epidemiology 2010 (in press).
13. Reniers G, Eaton J. Refusal bias in HIV prevalence estimates from nationally representative seroprevalence surveys. AIDS 2009; 23:621–629.
14. Wolitski RJ, Pals SL, Kidder DP, Courtenay-Quirk C, Holtgrave DR. The effects of HIV stigma on health, disclosure of HIV status, and risk behavior of homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV. AIDS Behav 2009; 13:1222–1232.
15. Wilson IB, Kaplan S. Physician-patient communication in HIV disease: the importance of patient, physician, and visit characteristics. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2000; 25:417–425.
16. Mshana GH, Wamoyi J, Busza J, Zaba B, Changalucha J, Kaluvya S, et al. Barriers to accessing antiretroviral therapy in Kisesa, Tanzania: a qualitative study of early rural referrals to the national program. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2006; 20:649–657.
Keywords:
antiretroviral therapy; HIV; treatment-as-prevention
© 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario