Browsing by Author "Doherty, Meg"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemCost-effectiveness of different strategies to monitor adults on antiretroviral treatment : a combined analysis of three mathematical models(Elsevier, 2014-01) Keebler, Daniel; Revill, Paul; Braithwaite, Scott; Phillips, Andrew; Blaser, Nello; Borquez, Annick; Cambiano, Valentina; Ciaranello, Andrea; Estill, Janne; Gray, Richard; Hill, Andrew; Keiser, Olivia; Kessler, Jason; Menzies, Nicolas A.; Nucifora, Kimberly A.; Vizcaya, Luisa Salazar; Walker, Simon; Welte, Alex; Easterbrook, Philippa; Doherty, Meg; Hirnschall, Gottfried; Hallett, Timothy B.Background WHO's 2013 revisions to its Consolidated Guidelines on antiretroviral drugs recommend routine viral load monitoring, rather than clinical or immunological monitoring, as the preferred monitoring approach on the basis of clinical evidence. However, HIV programmes in resource-limited settings require guidance on the most cost-effective use of resources in view of other competing priorities such as expansion of antiretroviral therapy coverage. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of alternative patient monitoring strategies. Methods We evaluated a range of monitoring strategies, including clinical, CD4 cell count, and viral load monitoring, alone and together, at different frequencies and with different criteria for switching to second-line therapies. We used three independently constructed and validated models simultaneously. We estimated costs on the basis of resource use projected in the models and associated unit costs; we quantified impact as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. We compared alternatives using incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. Findings All models show that clinical monitoring delivers significant benefit compared with a hypothetical baseline scenario with no monitoring or switching. Regular CD4 cell count monitoring confers a benefit over clinical monitoring alone, at an incremental cost that makes it affordable in more settings than viral load monitoring, which is currently more expensive. Viral load monitoring without CD4 cell count every 6–12 months provides the greatest reductions in morbidity and mortality, but incurs a high cost per DALY averted, resulting in lost opportunities to generate health gains if implemented instead of increasing antiretroviral therapy coverage or expanding antiretroviral therapy eligibility. Interpretation The priority for HIV programmes should be to expand antiretroviral therapy coverage, firstly at CD4 cell count lower than 350 cells per μL, and then at a CD4 cell count lower than 500 cells per μL, using lower-cost clinical or CD4 monitoring. At current costs, viral load monitoring should be considered only after high antiretroviral therapy coverage has been achieved. Point-of-care technologies and other factors reducing costs might make viral load monitoring more affordable in future.
- ItemPatient-reported barriers to adherence to antiretroviral therapy : a systematic review and meta-analysis(Public Library of Science, 2016) Shubber, Zara; Mills, Edward J.; Nachega, Jean B.; Vreeman, Rachel; Freitas, Marcelo; Bock, Peter; Nsanzimana, Sabin; Penazzato, Martina; Appolo, Tsitsi; Doherty, Meg; Ford, NathanENGLISH SUMMARY : Background: Maintaining high levels of adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is a challenge across settings and populations. Understanding the relative importance of different barriers to adherence will help inform the targeting of different interventions and future research priorities. Methods and Findings: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsychINFO from 01 January 1997 to 31 March 2016 for studies reporting barriers to adherence to ART. We calculated pooled proportions of reported barriers to adherence per age group (adults, adolescents, and children). We included data from 125 studies that provided information about adherence barriers for 17,061 adults, 1,099 children, and 856 adolescents. We assessed differences according to geographical location and level of economic development. The most frequently reported individual barriers included forgetting (adults 41.4%, 95% CI 37.3%–45.4%; adolescents 63.1%, 95% CI 46.3%–80.0%; children/caregivers 29.2%, 95% CI 20.1%–38.4%), being away from home (adults 30.4%, 95% CI 25.5%–35.2%; adolescents 40.7%, 95% CI 25.7%–55.6%; children/caregivers 18.5%, 95% CI 10.3%–26.8%), and a change to daily routine (adults 28.0%, 95% CI 20.9%–35.0%; adolescents 32.4%, 95% CI 0%–75.0%; children/caregivers 26.3%, 95% CI 15.3%–37.4%). Depression was reported as a barrier to adherence by more than 15% of patients across all age categories (adults 15.5%, 95% CI 12.8%–18.3%; adolescents 25.7%, 95% CI 17.7%–33.6%; children 15.1%, 95% CI 3.9%–26.3%), while alcohol/substance misuse was commonly reported by adults (12.9%, 95% CI 9.7%–16.1%) and adolescents (28.8%, 95% CI 11.8%–45.8%). Secrecy/stigma was a commonly cited barrier to adherence, reported by more than 10% of adults and children across all regions (adults 13.6%, 95% CI 11.9%–15.3%; children/caregivers 22.3%, 95% CI 10.2%–34.5%). Among adults, feeling sick (15.9%, 95% CI 13.0%–18.8%) was a more commonly cited barrier to adherence than feeling well (9.3%, 95% CI 7.2%–11.4%). Health service–related barriers, including distance to clinic (adults 17.5%, 95% CI 13.0%–21.9%) and stock outs (adults 16.1%, 95% CI 11.7%–20.4%), were also frequently reported. Limitations of this review relate to the fact that included studies differed in approaches to assessing adherence barriers and included variable durations of follow up. Studies that report self-reported adherence will likely underestimate the frequency of non-adherence. For children, barriers were mainly reported by caregivers, which may not correspond to the most important barriers faced by children. Conclusions: Patients on ART face multiple barriers to adherence, and no single intervention will be sufficient to ensure that high levels of adherence to treatment and virological suppression are sustained. For maximum efficacy, health providers should consider a more triaged approach that first identifies patients at risk of poor adherence and then seeks to establish the support that is needed to overcome the most important barriers to adherence.