MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6901952263 · doi:10.60692/4n3zb-fhs82

Simplified HIV Testing and Treatment in China: Analysis of Mortality Rates Before and After a Structural Intervention

2015· article· en· W6901952263 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsAIDS VancouverUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)HIV diagnosisAntiretroviral therapyHiv testIntervention (counseling)Receipt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multistage stepwise HIV testing and treatment initiation procedures can result in lost opportunities to provide timely antiretroviral therapy (ART). Incomplete patient engagement along the continuum of HIV care translates into high levels of preventable mortality. We aimed to evaluate the ability of a simplified test and treat structural intervention to reduce mortality.In the "pre-intervention 2010" (from January 2010 to December 2010) and "pre-intervention 2011" (from January 2011 to December 2011) phases, patients who screened HIV-positive at health care facilities in Zhongshan and Pubei counties in Guangxi, China, followed the standard-of-care process. In the "post-intervention 2012" (from July 2012 to June 2013) and "post-intervention 2013" (from July 2013 to June 2014) phases, patients who screened HIV-positive at the same facilities were offered a simplified test and treat intervention, i.e., concurrent HIV confirmatory and CD4 testing and immediate initiation of ART, irrespective of CD4 count. Participants were followed for 6-18 mo until the end of their study phase period. Mortality rates in the pre-intervention and post-intervention phases were compared for all HIV cases and for treatment-eligible HIV cases. A total of 1,034 HIV-positive participants (281 and 339 in the two pre-intervention phases respectively, and 215 and 199 in the two post-intervention phases respectively) were enrolled. Following the structural intervention, receipt of baseline CD4 testing within 30 d of HIV confirmation increased from 67%/61% (pre-intervention 2010/pre-intervention 2011) to 98%/97% (post-intervention 2012/post-intervention 2013) (all p < 0.001 [i.e., for all comparisons between a pre- and post-intervention phase]), and the time from HIV confirmation to ART initiation decreased from 53 d (interquartile range [IQR] 27-141)/43 d (IQR 15-113) to 5 d (IQR 2-12)/5 d (IQR 2-13) (all p < 0.001). Initiation of ART increased from 27%/49% to 91%/89% among all cases (all p < 0.001) and from 39%/62% to 94%/90% among individuals with CD4 count ≤ 350 cells/mm3 or AIDS (all p < 0.001). Mortality decreased from 27%/27% to 10%/10% for all cases (all p < 0.001) and from 40%/35% to 13%/13% for cases with CD4 count ≤ 350 cells/mm3 or AIDS (all p < 0.001). The simplified test and treat intervention was significantly associated with decreased mortality rates compared to pre-intervention 2011 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.385 [95% CI 0.239-0.620] and 0.380 [95% CI 0.233-0.618] for the two post-intervention phases, respectively, for all newly diagnosed HIV cases [both p < 0.001], and aHR 0.369 [95% CI 0.226-0.603] and 0.361 [95% CI 0.221-0.590] for newly diagnosed treatment-eligible HIV cases [both p < 0.001]). The unit cost of an additional patient receiving ART attributable to the intervention was US$83.80. The unit cost of a death prevented because of the intervention was US$234.52.Our results demonstrate that the simplified HIV test and treat intervention promoted successful engagement in care and was associated with a 62% reduction in mortality. Our findings support the implementation of integrated HIV testing and immediate access to ART irrespective of CD4 count, in order to optimize the impact of ART.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→