Journal Article > CommentaryAbstract
Lancet Infect Dis. 2014 November 19; Volume 15 (Issue 2); DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70896-5
Ford NP, Meintjes GA, Pozniak A, Bygrave H, Hill AM, et al.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2014 November 19; Volume 15 (Issue 2); DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70896-5
For more than two decades, CD4 cell count measurements have been central to understanding HIV disease progression, making important clinical decisions, and monitoring the response to antiretroviral therapy (ART). In well resourced settings, the monitoring of patients on ART has been supported by routine virological monitoring. Viral load monitoring was recommended by WHO in 2013 guidelines as the preferred way to monitor people on ART, and efforts are underway to scale up access in resource-limited settings. Recent studies suggest that in situations where viral load is available and patients are virologically suppressed, long-term CD4 monitoring adds little value and stopping CD4 monitoring will have major cost savings. CD4 cell counts will continue to play an important part in initial decisions around ART initiation and clinical management, particularly for patients presenting late to care, and for treatment monitoring where viral load monitoring is restricted. However, in settings where both CD4 cell counts and viral load testing are routinely available, countries should consider reducing the frequency of CD4 cell counts or not doing routine CD4 monitoring for patients who are stable on ART.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Nature. 2015 December 1; Volume 528 (Issue 7580); S68-S76.; DOI:10.1038/nature16046
Phillips AN, Shroufi A, Vojnov L, Cohn J, Roberts TR, et al.
Nature. 2015 December 1; Volume 528 (Issue 7580); S68-S76.; DOI:10.1038/nature16046
There are inefficiencies in current approaches to monitoring patients on antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa. Patients typically attend clinics every 1 to 3 months for clinical assessment. The clinic costs are comparable with the costs of the drugs themselves and CD4 counts are measured every 6 months, but patients are rarely switched to second-line therapies. To ensure sustainability of treatment programmes, a transition to more cost-effective delivery of antiretroviral therapy is needed. In contrast to the CD4 count, measurement of the level of HIV RNA in plasma (the viral load) provides a direct measure of the current treatment effect. Viral-load-informed differentiated care is a means of tailoring care so that those with suppressed viral load visit the clinic less frequently and attention is focussed on those with unsuppressed viral load to promote adherence and timely switching to a second-line regimen. The most feasible approach to measuring viral load in many countries is to collect dried blood spot samples for testing in regional laboratories; however, there have been concerns over the sensitivity and specificity of this approach to define treatment failure and the delay in returning results to the clinic. We use modelling to synthesize evidence and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of viral-load-informed differentiated care, accounting for limitations of dried blood sample testing. We find that viral-load-informed differentiated care using dried blood sample testing is cost-effective and is a recommended strategy for patient monitoring, although further empirical evidence as the approach is rolled out would be of value. We also explore the potential benefits of point-of-care viral load tests that may become available in the future.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 October 20; Volume 17 (Issue 1); e26-e29.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30212-2
Peter T, Ellenberger D, Kim AA, Boeras D, Messele T, et al.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 October 20; Volume 17 (Issue 1); e26-e29.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30212-2
Scaling up access to HIV viral load testing for individuals undergoing antiretroviral therapy in low-resource settings is a global health priority, as emphasised by research showing the benefits of suppressed viral load for the individual and the whole population. Historically, large-scale diagnostic test implementation has been slow and incomplete because of service delivery and other challenges. Building on lessons from the past, in this Personal View we propose a new framework to accelerate viral load scale-up and ensure equitable access to this essential test. The framework includes the following steps: (1) ensuring adequate financial investment in scaling up this test; (2) achieving pricing agreements and consolidating procurement to lower prices of the test; (3) strengthening functional tiered laboratory networks and systems to expand access to reliable, high-quality testing across countries; (4) strengthening national leadership, with prioritisation of laboratory services; and (5) demand creation and uptake of test results by clinicians, nurses, and patients, which will be vital in ensuring viral load tests are appropriately used to improve the quality of care. The use of dried blood spots to stabilise and ship samples from clinics to laboratories, and the use of point-of-care diagnostic tests, will also be important for ensuring access, especially in settings with reduced laboratory capacity. For countries that have just started to scale up viral load testing, lessons can be learnt from countries such as Botswana, Brazil, South Africa, and Thailand, which have already established viral load programmes. This framework might be useful for guiding the implementation of viral load with the aim of achieving the new global HIV 90-90-90 goals by 2020.