Despite progress toward controlling the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic, testing gaps remain, particularly among men and young persons in sub-Saharan Africa (1). This observational study used routinely collected programmatic data from 20 African countries reported to the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) from October 2018 to September 2019 to assess HIV testing coverage and case finding among adults (defined as persons aged ≥15 years). Indicators included number of HIV tests conducted, number of HIV-positive test results, and percentage positivity rate. Overall, the majority of countries reported higher HIV case finding among women than among men. However, a slightly higher percentage positivity was recorded among men (4.7%) than among women (4.1%). Provider-initiated counseling and testing (PITC) in health facilities identified approximately two thirds of all new cases, but index testing had the highest percentage positivity in all countries among both sexes. Yields from voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) and mobile testing varied by sex and by country. These findings highlight the need to identify and implement the most efficient strategies for HIV case finding in these countries to close coverage Continuing Education examination available at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_continuingEducation.html INSIDE
Background Mitigation measures for the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and burden on health systems created challenges for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) service delivery. We examined PrEP uptake in PEPFAR programs before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We studied two PEPFAR program monitoring indicators, using routine Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting (MER) indicators capturing uptake of PrEP (PrEP_NEW) and overall use of PrEP (PrEP_CURR). We also analyzed descriptive program narratives to understand successes and challenges field teams encountered after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. To assess changes in coverage of PrEP across 21 countries, we calculated the “PrEP to need ratio” (PnR) using a published methodology. We defined the pre-COVID time period as April 1, 2019 –March 31, 2020 and the COVID time period as April 1, 2020 –March 31, 2021. Findings The total number of persons who initiated PrEP increased by 157% from 233,250 in the pre-COVID-19 period compared with 599,935 in the COVID-19 period. All countries, except five, noted significant increases in PrEP uptake. PrEP uptake among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) increased by 159% from 80,452 AGYW in the pre-COVID-19 period to 208,607 AGYW in the COVID-19 period. There were 77,430 key populations (KP) initiated on PrEP in the pre-COVID-19 period and 209,114 KP initiated in the COVID-19 period (a 170% increase). The PnR increased 214% in the COVID-19 period across all PEPFAR-supported countries. Adaptations, such as multi-month dispensing (MMD) of PrEP; virtual demand creation activities; decentralized, community-based and virtual service delivery, were implemented to maintain PrEP services. Conclusions PEPFAR programs continued to maintain and initiate new clients on PrEP despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Adaptations such as MMD of PrEP and use of technology were vital in expanding service delivery and increasing PrEP coverage. Funding This project has been supported by the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
We conducted decision analytical modeling using a Markov model to determine the ICER of i-factor compared to autograft in ACDF surgery. Objective: The efficacy and safety of traditional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery has improved with the introduction of new implants and compounds. Costeffectiveness of these innovations remains an often-overlooked aspect of this effort. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of i-FACTOR compared to autograft for patients undergoing ACDF surgery. Methods: The patient cohort was extracted from a prospective, multicenter randomized control trial (RCT) from twenty-two North American centers. Patients randomly received either autograft (N = 154) or i-Factor (N = 165). We analyzed various real-world scenarios, including inpatient and outpatient surgical settings as well as private versus public insurances. Two primary outcome measures were assessed: cost and utility. In the base-case analysis, both health and societal system costs were evaluated. Health-related utility outcome was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: In all scenarios, i-FACTOR reduced costs within the first year by 1.4% to 2.1%. The savings proved to be incremental over time, increasing to 3.7% over an extrapolated 10 years. The ICER at 90 days was $13,333 per QALY and became negative ("dominated") relative to the control group within one year and onwards. In a threshold sensitivity analysis, the cost of i-FACTOR could theoretically be increased 70-fold and still remain cost-effective. Conclusion:The novel i-FACTOR is not only cost-effective compared to autograft in ACDF surgery but is the dominant economic strategy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.