Antiretroviral therapy programme outcomes at Senkatana Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) Clinic, Lesotho: a four-year retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: sub-Saharan Africa, home to over 10% of the world´s population, is the worst Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-affected region in the world. HIV/AIDS is a major public health challenge in Lesotho, with an HIV prevalence of 25.6% in 2018. The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment outcomes of people living with HIV (PLHIV) on antiretroviral therapy (ART) after 48 months of initiation. Methods: we conducted a register-based retrospective cohort study for all patients registered at the Senkatana ART Clinic from January to December 2014 and followed them for 48 months until 2018. The ART treatment register and treatment cards were the primary source of data. Data were captured and cleaned in Epi info version 7 and exported into Stata version 14 for analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to describe participant characteristics. Due to the lack of incident data, the factors associated with treatment outcomes were determined using Chi-square tests and logistic regression. Results: in 2014, 604 patients were enrolled on ART, of which the majority were female (59.4%) and married (54.8%). The mean age (standard deviation (SD)) at which ART was started was 36 years (10.5) years. After 48 months of initiation, the cohort consisted of 387 patients of which 365 (94.3%) were retained on treatment. In the multivariable logistic regression model, neither demographic characteristics nor clinical factors were associated with ART treatment outcome (viral load suppression, adherence, or ART retention), however, the univariable analysis showed that higher CD4 count at initiation was associated with viral load suppression. Conclusion: retention, viral load suppression, and adherence were generally good in this cohort after 48 months of initiation. CD4 at initiation was a significant predictor of viral load suppression at 48 months. The ART programme has managed to maintain high viral load suppression and improve immunity in patients who are immunocompromised. Proper data quality management is required for adequate patient monitoring to enable clinical personnel to record and use individual patient data for guiding the clinical management of such patients. Strengthening patient support and tracing will help to reduce the number of patients lost to follow-up.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".