Introduction Since 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that all people living with HIV (PLHIV) initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART), irrespective of CD4+ count or clinical stage. National adoption of universal treatment has accelerated since WHO's 2015 “Treat All” recommendation; however, little is known about the translation of this guidance into practice. This study aimed to assess the status of Treat All implementation across regions, countries, and levels of the health care delivery system. Methods Between June and December 2017, 201/221 (91%) adult HIV treatment sites that participate in the global IeDEA research consortium completed a survey on capacity and practices related to HIV care. Located in 41 countries across seven geographic regions, sites provided information on the status and timing of site‐level introduction of Treat All, as well as site‐level practices related to ART initiation. Results Almost all sites (93%) reported that they had begun implementing Treat All, and there were no statistically significant differences in site‐level Treat All introduction by health facility type, urban/rural location, sector (public/private) or country income level. The median time between national policy adoption and site‐level introduction was one month. In countries where Treat All was not yet adopted in national guidelines, 69% of sites reported initiating all patients on ART, regardless of clinical criteria, and these sites had been implementing Treat All for a median period of seven months at the time of the survey. The majority of sites (77%) reported typically initiating patients on ART within 14 days of confirming diagnosis, with 60% to 62% of sites implementing Treat All in East, Southern and West Africa reporting same‐day ART initiation for most patients. Conclusions By mid‐ to late‐2017, the Treat All strategy was the standard of care at almost all IeDEA sites, including rural, primary‐level health facilities in low‐resource settings. While further assessments of site‐level capacity to provide high‐quality HIV care under Treat All and to support sustained viral suppression after ART initiation are needed, the widespread introduction of Treat All at the service delivery level is a critical step towards global targets for ending the HIV epidemic as a public health threat.

20-1% (p = 0.49). Until delivery, the relative risk of acquiring genital infections was also higher in HIV+ women than in HIV -women: 1.0 for syphilis (95% CI: 0.5-2.2), 3.7 for Neisseria gonorrhoea (1.0-13.3), 2.6 for Trichomonas vaginalis (1.5-4.6) and 1.6 for Candida vaginalis (1.1-2.4). Conclusion-In the context of high HIV-1 seroprevalence among pregnant women, prenatal care should include at least once screening for genital infections by clinical examination with speculum and a syphilis testing in Africa.

Introduction Interruptions in treatment pose risks for people with HIV (PWH) and threaten progress in ending the HIV epidemic; however, the COVID‐19 pandemic's impact on HIV service delivery across diverse settings is not broadly documented. Methods From September 2020 to March 2021, the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) research consortium surveyed 238 HIV care sites across seven geographic regions to document constraints in HIV service delivery during the first year of the pandemic and strategies for ensuring care continuity for PWH. Descriptive statistics were stratified by national HIV prevalence (<1%, 1–4.9% and ≥5%) and country income levels. Results Questions about pandemic‐related consequences for HIV care were completed by 225 (95%) sites in 42 countries with low ( n = 82), medium ( n = 86) and high ( n = 57) HIV prevalence, including low‐ ( n = 57), lower‐middle ( n = 79), upper‐middle ( n = 39) and high‐ ( n = 50) income countries. Most sites reported being subject to pandemic‐related restrictions on travel, service provision or other operations (75%), and experiencing negative impacts (76%) on clinic operations, including decreased hours/days, reduced provider availability, clinic reconfiguration for COVID‐19 services, record‐keeping interruptions and suspension of partner support. Almost all sites in low‐prevalence and high‐income countries reported increased use of telemedicine (85% and 100%, respectively), compared with less than half of sites in high‐prevalence and lower‐income settings. Few sites in high‐prevalence settings (2%) reported suspending antiretroviral therapy (ART) clinic services, and many reported adopting mitigation strategies to support adherence, including multi‐month dispensing of ART (95%) and designating community ART pick‐up points (44%). While few sites (5%) reported stockouts of first‐line ART regimens, 10–11% reported stockouts of second‐ and third‐line regimens, respectively, primarily in high‐prevalence and lower‐income settings. Interruptions in HIV viral load (VL) testing included suspension of testing (22%), longer turnaround times (41%) and supply/reagent stockouts (22%), but did not differ across settings. Conclusions While many sites in high HIV prevalence settings and lower‐income countries reported introducing or expanding measures to support treatment adherence and continuity of care, the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in disruptions to VL testing and ART supply chains that may negatively affect the quality of HIV care in these settings.

A model with a new darunavir-weighted mutation score outperformed existing GISs in both B and non-B subtypes in predicting virological response to darunavir.