4.7 Article

Significant Patient Impact Observed Upon Implementation of Point-of-Care Early Infant Diagnosis Technologies in an Observational Study in Malawi

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 67, 期 5, 页码 701-707

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy169

关键词

point-of-care; early infant diagnosis; HIV; ART initiation

资金

  1. Unitaid
  2. United Nations Children's Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. In Malawi in 2014, <20% of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-exposed infants received an early infant diagnosis (EID) test in the first 2 months of life and only 30% of HIV-infected children were on antiretroviral therapy (ART). We sought to understand the potential patient impact of improving timely infant diagnosis and treatment initiation through implementation of point-of-care (POC) EID technologies in Malawi. Methods. In this observational study, POC EID technologies were introduced into routine services at 7 health facilities across Malawi in September 2015. The primary outcome was the proportion of HIV-infected infants initiating ART within 60 days of sample collection in the POC arm compared to the baseline arm with conventional laboratory-based EID testing. Results. The time from sample collection to result received by the patient decreased significantly from 56 days (interquartile range [IQR], 30-81 days) in the baseline arm to <1 day in the POC arm (P < .001). Of the HIV-infected infants, the time between sample collection and ART initiation was reduced from 38 days (IQR, 30-54 days) in the baseline arm to <1 day (IQR, 0-1 day) in the POC arm (P = .019). Furthermore, the proportion of HIV-infected infants initiated on ART within 60 days of sample collection increased significantly from 41.9% to 91.1% after the introduction of POC (adjusted risk ratio, 2.28; P < .001). Conclusions. ART initiation rates were significantly improved with the implementation of same-day POC EID testing compared with referred, longer-turnaround laboratory-based testing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据