Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this systematic review we have sought to summarise the current knowledge concerning biomarkers that can distinguish between steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome and steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome. Additionally, we aim to select biomarkers that have the best evidence-base and should be prioritised for further research. Pub med and web of science databases were searched using “steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome AND biomarker”. Papers published between 01/01/2012 and 10/05/2022 were included. Papers that did not compare steroid resistant and steroid sensitive nephrotic syndrome, did not report sensitivity/specificity or area under curve and reviews/letters were excluded. The selected papers were then assessed for bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. The source of the biomarker, cut off, sensitivity/specificity, area under curve and sample size were all extracted. Quality assessment was performed using the BIOCROSS tool. 17 studies were included, comprising 15 case-control studies and 2 cross-sectional studies. Given the rarity of nephrotic syndrome and difficulty in recruiting large cohorts, case-control studies were accepted despite their limitations. We present a range of candidate biomarkers along with scores relating to the quality of the original publications and the risk of bias to inform future investigations. None of the selected papers stated whether the authors were blinded to the patient’s disease when assessing the index test in the cohort. Highlighting a key problem in the field that needs to be addressed. These candidate biomarkers must now be tested with much larger sample sizes. Using new biobanks such as the one built by the NURTuRE-INS team will be very helpful in this regard.

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. 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. 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.

Background Shortages of human resources for health (HRH) have severely hampered the rollout of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in sub-Saharan Africa. Current rollout models are hospital- and physician-intensive. Task shifting, or delegating tasks performed by physicians to staff with lower-level qualifications, is considered a means of expanding rollout in resource-poor or HRH-limited settings. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review. Medline, the Cochrane library, the Social Science Citation Index, and the South African National Health Research Database were searched with the following terms: task shift*, balance of care, non-physician clinicians, substitute health care worker, community care givers, primary healthcare teams, cadres, and nurs* HIV. We mined bibliographies and corresponded with authors for further results. Grey literature was searched online, and conference proceedings searched for abstracts. Results We found 2960 articles, of which 84 were included in the core review. 51 reported outcomes, including research from 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The most common intervention studied was the delegation of tasks (especially initiating and monitoring HAART) from doctors to nurses and other non-physician clinicians. Five studies showed increased access to HAART through expanded clinical capacity; two concluded task shifting is cost effective; 9 showed staff equal or better quality of care; studies on non-physician clinician agreement with physician decisions was mixed, with the majority showing good agreement. Conclusions Task shifting is an effective strategy for addressing shortages of HRH in HIV treatment and care. Task shifting offers high-quality, cost-effective care to more patients than a physician-centered model. The main challenges to implementation include adequate and sustainable training, support and pay for staff in new roles, the integration of new members into healthcare teams, and the compliance of regulatory bodies. Task shifting should be considered for careful implementation where HRH shortages threaten rollout programmes.

Background Multi-drug or rifamycin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB) is an important public health concern, including in settings with high HIV prevalence. TB drug resistance can be directly transmitted or arise through resistance acquisition during first-line TB treatment. Limited evidence suggests that people living with HIV (PLHIV) might have an increased risk of acquired rifamycin-resistance (ARR). Methods To assess HIV as a risk factor for ARR during first-line TB treatment, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. ARR was defined as rifamycin-susceptibility at treatment start with rifamycin-resistance diagnosed during or at the end of treatment, or at recurrence. PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to 23 May 2024 for articles in English; conference abstracts were also searched from 2004 to 2021. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio of any association between HIV and ARR among individuals receiving first-line TB treatment. Results Ten studies that included data collected between 1990 and 2014 were identified: five from the United States, two from South Africa and one each from Uganda, India and Moldova. A total of 97,564 individuals were included across all studies, with 13,359 (13.7%) PLHIV. Overall, 312 (0.32%) acquired rifamycin-resistance, among whom 115 (36.9%) were PLHIV. The weighted odds of ARR were 4.57 (95% CI, 2.01–10.42) times higher among PLHIV compared to HIV-negative individuals receiving first-line TB treatment. Conclusion The available data, suggest that PLHIV have an increased ARR risk during first-line TB treatment. Further research is needed to clarify specific risk factors, including advanced HIV disease and TB disease severity. Given the introduction of shorter, 4-month rifamycin-based regimens, there is an urgent need for additional data on ARR, particularly for PLHIV. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022327337.

Introduction Since 2014, the global public health community has recognized a set of targets for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) known as “90-90-90,” an ambitious plan that called for the diagnosis of 90% of people living with HIV (PLHIV), antiretroviral therapy(ART) for 90% of those diagnosed HIV–positive, and viral suppression in 90% of those receiving ART by 2020 [1]. Population-level control of HIV will remain out of reach if many people initiating treatment disengage from ART for long periods of time, as they will have increased opportunity for viral load failure, morbidity, mortality [7], development of drug resistance, and viral transmission [8–11]. Clinical outcomes, such as viral load suppression, are not explicitly included in the cascade as long-term retention in care, the fourth stage in our cascade, is highly correlated with suppressed viral load [7,27], and our intention is to better understand PLHIV behavior as it relates to patterns of engagement, not the biological results of treatment. [...]the proposed cascade does not identify the facility at which people return to care or indicate how long they were disengaged.

CD4 cell count is an important test in HIV programs for baseline risk assessment, monitoring of ART where viral load is not available, and, in many settings, antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation decisions. However, access to CD4 testing is limited, in part due to the centralized conventional laboratory network. Point of care (POC) CD4 testing has the potential to address some of the challenges of centralized CD4 testing and delays in delivery of timely testing and ART initiation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the extent to which POC improves linkages to HIV care and timeliness of ART initiation. We searched two databases and four conference sites between January 2005 and April 2015 for studies reporting test turnaround times, proportion of results returned, and retention associated with the use of point-of-care CD4. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled risk ratios, pooled proportions, and 95% confidence intervals. We identified 30 eligible studies, most of which were completed in Africa. Test turnaround times were reduced with the use of POC CD4. The time from HIV diagnosis to CD4 test was reduced from 10.5 days with conventional laboratory-based testing to 0.1 days with POC CD4 testing. Retention along several steps of the treatment initiation cascade was significantly higher with POC CD4 testing, notably from HIV testing to CD4 testing, receipt of results, and pre-CD4 test retention (all p<0.001). Furthermore, retention between CD4 testing and ART initiation increased with POC CD4 testing compared to conventional laboratory-based testing (p = 0.01). We also carried out a non-systematic review of the literature observing that POC CD4 increased the projected life expectancy, was cost-effective, and acceptable. POC CD4 technologies reduce the time and increase patient retention along the testing and treatment cascade compared to conventional laboratory-based testing. POC CD4 is, therefore, a useful tool to perform CD4 testing and expedite result delivery.

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation in the community and outside of a traditional health facility has the potential to improve linkage to ART, decongest health facilities, and minimize structural barriers to attending HIV services among people living with HIV (PLWH). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of offering ART initiation in the community on HIV treatment outcomes. We searched databases between 1 January 2013 and 22 February 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared offering ART initiation in a community setting to offering ART initiation in a traditional health facility or alternative community setting. We assessed risk of bias, reporting of implementation outcomes, and real-world relevance and used Mantel-Haenszel methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals. We evaluated heterogeneity qualitatively and quantitatively and used GRADE to evaluate overall evidence certainty. Searches yielded 4,035 records, resulting in 8 included studies-4 RCTs and 4 observational studies-conducted in Lesotho, South Africa, Nigeria, Uganda, Malawi, Tanzania, and Haiti-a total of 11,196 PLWH. Five studies were conducted in general HIV populations, 2 in key populations, and 1 in adolescents. Community ART initiation strategies included community-based HIV testing coupled with ART initiation at home or at community venues; 5 studies maintained ART refills in the community, and 4 provided refills at the health facility. All studies were pragmatic, but in most cases provided additional resources. Few studies reported on implementation outcomes. All studies showed higher ART uptake in community initiation arms compared to facility initiation and refill arms (standard of care) (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.45; RD 30%, 95% CI 10% to 50%; 5 studies). Retention (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.54; RD 19%, 95% CI 11% to 28%; 4 studies) and viral suppression (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.49; RD 15%, 95% CI 10% to 21%; 3 studies) at 12 months were also higher in the community-based ART initiation arms. Improved uptake, retention, and viral suppression with community ART initiation were seen across population subgroups-including men, adolescents, and key populations. One study reported no difference in retention and viral suppression at 2 years. There were limited data on adherence and mortality. Social harms and adverse events appeared to be minimal and similar between community ART initiation and standard of care. One study compared ART refill strategies following community ART initiation (community versus facility refills) and found no difference in viral suppression (RD -7%, 95% CI -19% to 6%) or retention at 12 months (RD -12%, 95% CI -23% to 0.3%). This systematic review was limited by few studies for inclusion, poor-quality observational data, and short-term outcomes. Based on data from a limited set of studies, community ART initiation appears to result in higher ART uptake, retention, and viral suppression at 1 year compared to facility-based ART initiation. Implementation on a wider scale necessitates broader exploration of costs, logistics, and acceptability by providers and PLWH to ensure that these effects are reproducible when delivered at scale, in different contexts, and over time.

In 2006, WHO set forth its vision for a public health approach to delivering antiretroviral therapy. This approach has been broadly adopted in resource-poor settings and has provided the foundation for scaling up treatment to over 19·5 million people. There is a global commitment to end the AIDS epidemic as a public health threat by 2030 and, to support this goal, there are opportunities to adapt the public health approach to meet the ensuing challenges. These challenges include the need to improve identification of people with HIV infection through expanded approaches to testing; further simplify and improve treatment and laboratory monitoring; adapt the public health approach to concentrated epidemics; and link HIV testing, treatment, and care to HIV prevention. Implementation of these key public health principles will bring countries closer to the goals of controlling the HIV epidemic and providing universal health coverage.

The recently updated World Health Organization (WHO) consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) recommending to “treat all” mark a paradigm shift in the delivery of HIV treatment: from who is eligible and when to start ART, to how to provide client‐centred and high‐quality care to all people living with HIV (PLHIV). While national policies endorsing differentiated care are necessary for scale‐up of HIV services, successful implementation will be dependent on an enabling environment inclusive of a robust drug supply (including fast tracked drug pick‐ups and 3–6 month ART refills); access to laboratory monitoring, in particular viral load; a reliable monitoring and evaluation system; and recognition of lay workers. [...]leveraging the concept of differentiated care beyond HIV to other chronic diseases for all clients will strengthen health systems and contribute to reaching Sustainable Development Goal 3 – “good health and well‐being” [ 19].