METHODS: A cross-sectional standardised survey was completed in 2014-2015 by sites providing paediatric HIV care across regions of the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium. We developed a comprehensiveness score based on the WHO's nine categories of essential services to categorise sites as 'low' (0-5), 'medium', (6-7) or 'high' (8-9). When available, comprehensiveness scores were compared with scores from a 2009 survey. We used patient-level data with site services to investigate the relationship between the comprehensiveness of services and retention.
RESULTS: Survey data from 174 IeDEA sites in 32 countries were analysed. Of the WHO essential services, sites were most likely to offer antiretroviral therapy (ART) provision and counselling (n=173; 99%), co-trimoxazole prophylaxis (168; 97%), prevention of perinatal transmission services (167; 96%), outreach for patient engagement and follow-up (166; 95%), CD4 cell count testing (126; 88%), tuberculosis screening (151; 87%) and select immunisation services (126; 72%). Sites were less likely to offer nutrition/food support (97; 56%), viral load testing (99; 69%) and HIV counselling and testing (69; 40%). 10% of sites rated 'low', 59% 'medium' and 31% 'high' in the comprehensiveness score. The mean comprehensiveness of services score increased significantly from 5.6 in 2009 to 7.3 in 2014 (p<0.001; n=30). Patient-level analysis of lost to follow-up after ART initiation estimated the hazard was highest in sites rated 'low' and lowest in sites rated 'high'.
CONCLUSION: This global assessment suggests the potential care impact of scaling-up and sustaining comprehensive paediatric HIV services. Meeting recommendations for comprehensive HIV services should remain a global priority.
Methods: Sixteen LMIC sites included in the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS - Asia-Pacific network were surveyed.
Results: Sites were mostly (81%) based in urban public referral hospitals. Half had protocols to assess tobacco and alcohol use. Protocols for assessing physical inactivity and obesity were in place at 31% and 38% of sites, respectively. Most sites provided educational material on ASCVD risk factors (between 56% and 75% depending on risk factors). A total of 94% reported performing routine screening for hypertension, 100% for hyperlipidaemia and 88% for diabetes. Routine ASCVD risk assessment was reported by 94% of sites. Protocols for the management of hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes, high ASCVD risk and chronic ischaemic stroke were in place at 50%, 69%, 56%, 19% and 38% of sites, respectively. Blood pressure monitoring was free for patients at 69% of sites; however, most required patients to pay some or all the costs for other ASCVD-related procedures. Medications available in the clinic or within the same facility included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (81%), statins (94%) and sulphonylureas (94%).
Conclusion: The consistent availability of clinical screening, diagnostic testing and procedures and the availability of ASCVD medications in the Asian LMIC clinics surveyed are strengths that should be leveraged to improve the implementation of cardiovascular care protocols.