Upload
janice-bobb
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The HIV Engagement in Care Cascade
Edward Gardner, MDAssociate Professor of Medicine
Denver Public HealthUniversity of Colorado Denver
Test and Treat
Models made sense…
But it seemed a lot needed to happen in between
We were thinking more like Test and Link and Retain and Re-engageand Treat and Persist and Adhere andRe-engage …
HIV Care Continuum
Adapted from Eldred et al AIDS Patient Care STDs 2007;21(Suppl1):S1-S2Cheever LW Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:1500-2
Not in HIV Care Engaged in HIV Care
Unaware of HIV infection
Aware of HIV infection (not in care)
Receiving some medical care but
not HIV care
Entered HIV care but lost to
follow-up
Cyclical or intermittent user
of HIV care
Fully engaged in HIV care
Test and Treat for HIV Prevention
Das M et al. PLoS One 2010;5:e11068
Treatment as Prevention – HPTN 052
NEJM 2011;365:
493-505.
HPTN-05296% reductionIn HIV incidence
CDC Cascade
MMWR December 2, 2011 / 60(47);1618-1623
Review Search Strategy• PubMed search - cross-match of HIV or AIDS with
– Prevalence United States– Incidence United States– Late diagnosis– Linkage to care– Retention in care– Engagement in care– Adherence– Persistence– Resistance
• Bibliographies of pertinent articles were reviewed• Emphasis was based on population based studies
over cohort or single institution studies
Linkage to HIV Care• Original Cascade estimated about 75% linkage• Marks et al.1 meta-analysis found 72% linkage
in studies after 2003• MMWR2 estimated 77% linkage• Dombrowski et al.3 showed 88% linkage in 3
months in Seattle/King County Washington• Denver Public Health Data (unpublished):
• Final Estimate: 72 – 88%1AIDS 2010, 24:2665–2678, 2MMWR 2011 / 60(47);1618-1623, 3AIDS 2012, 26:77-86.
Retention in HIV Care• Original Cascade estimated 50% retention• Marks et al.1 meta-analysis – 59% retention• MMWR2 – 51%• Torian et al.3, New York City – 46% (regular care)• Hall et al.4, 13 U.S. areas – 59% (1 visit/year)• Tripathi et al.5, South Carolina – 50%• Dombrowski et al.6, Seattle – 66%• Final Estimate: 46 – 66%
1AIDS 2010, 24:2665–2678, 2MMWR 2011 / 60(47);1618-1623, 3AIDS Pt Care STDs 2011;25:79-88, 4JAIDS 2012;60:77-82, 5AIDS Res Hum Retrovir 2011;27:751-58, 6AIDS 2012, 26:77-86.
Attainment of an Undetectable Viral Load
• Original Cascade estimated 60% undetectable• Marks et al.1: 62% < 75 cps/ml, 73% < 400
cps/ml• MMWR2: 77% • Hall et al.3: 73%• Dombrowski et al.4: 65%• InCare Campaign5: 70%• Final Estimate: 62 – 77%
1AIDS 2010, 24:2665–2678, 2MMWR 2011 / 60(47);1618-1623, 3AIDS Pt Care STDs 2011;25:79-88, 4AIDS 2012, 26:77-86, 5www.incarecampaign.org
Simulations of the Engagement in HIV Care Spectrum to Account for Inaccuracy in our Engagement Estimates
66%
21%28%34%22%19%
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
Current Dx 90% Engage 90% Treat 90% VL<50 in 90% Dx, Engage,Tx, and
VL<50 in 90%
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Un-Diagnosed HIV
Not Linked to Care
Not Retained in Care
ART Not Required
ART Not Utililzed
Viremic on ART
Undetectable Viral Load
Denver Cascade over Time
76%70%
62% 61%55% 55% 54% 54%
58%54%
9%16% 17% 22% 23% 21% 21% 18% 21%
17% 12% 11% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6%
5% 7% 9% 11% 10% 11% 14% 13% 14% 14%
2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 4%
21%29% 32%
37% 35% 33% 35% 37% 37% 36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Months After HIV Diagnosis
% in care %not retained %not linked
%out of state %expired % VL<200cps/ml
IAS 2012 Poster MOPDC0305
Denver Cascade over Time Censoring Out-Migration and Death
IAS 2012 Poster MOPDC0305
Limitations
• Different definitions of linkage and retention in different studies
• Overlap in the stages of engagement in HIV care– Cross-sectional depiction of a longitudinal process
• The review applies to the U.S. and not to resource-poor settings
• Unable to assess the impact of financial barriers to HIV care in the U.S.
Conclusions• Engagement in care is critical to the successful
management of HIV infection– For the individual– For the population
• Deficiencies in the spectrum of engagement in care present formidable barriers to HIV care and ‘test and treat’ for HIV prevention:– Failure to diagnose– Failure to link to care– Failure to be retained in care– Failure to receive and adhere to antiretroviral therapy
• Research is needed on ways to improve transitions across all steps in the engagement in care cascade
Comments
• Universal Treatment is the “Treat” of Test & Treat
• Data quality on engagement steps is improving• Engagement in Care research in HIV is likely
applicable to other chronic illnesses• Cascade formats could be standardized and
used worldwide as a snapshot of HIV Care
Thank You
Talk Supported by AIDS United
Questions?