This article is available in: PDF HTML EPUB XML

The HIV care cascade: a systematic review of data sources, methodology and comparability

Nicholas A Medland, James H McMahon, Eric PF Chow, Julian H Elliott, Jennifer F Hoy, Christopher K Fairley

Abstract


Introduction: The cascade of HIV diagnosis, care and treatment (HIV care cascade) is increasingly used to direct and evaluate interventions to increase population antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage, a key component of treatment as prevention. The ability to compare cascades over time, sub-population, jurisdiction or country is important. However, differences in data sources and methodology used to construct the HIV care cascade might limit its comparability and ultimately its utility. Our aim was to review systematically the different methods used to estimate and report the HIV care cascade and their comparability.

Methods: A search of published and unpublished literature through March 2015 was conducted. Cascades that reported the continuum of care from diagnosis to virological suppression in a demographically definable population were included. Data sources and methods of measurement or estimation were extracted. We defined the most comparable cascade elements as those that directly measured diagnosis or care from a population-based data set.

Results and discussions: Thirteen reports were included after screening 1631 records. The undiagnosed HIV-infected population was reported in seven cascades, each of which used different data sets and methods and could not be considered to be comparable. All 13 used mandatory HIV diagnosis notification systems to measure the diagnosed population. Population-based data sets, derived from clinical data or mandatory reporting of CD4 cell counts and viral load tests from all individuals, were used in 6 of 12 cascades reporting linkage, 6 of 13 reporting retention, 3 of 11 reporting ART and 6 of 13 cascades reporting virological suppression. Cascades with access to population-based data sets were able to directly measure cascade elements and are therefore comparable over time, place and sub-population. Other data sources and methods are less comparable.

Conclusions: To ensure comparability, countries wishing to accurately measure the cascade should utilize complete population-based data sets from clinical data from elements of a centralized healthcare setting, where available, or mandatory CD4 cell count and viral load test result reporting. Additionally, virological suppression should be presented both as percentage of diagnosed and percentage of estimated total HIV-infected population, until methods to calculate the latter have been standardized.

Keywords: HIV; cascade; treatment as prevention; antiretroviral therapy; treatment coverage; population-based data; HIV care cascade; HIV treatment cascade.

To access the supplementary material to this article please see Supplementary Files in the column to the right (under Article Tools).

(Published: 30 November 2015)

Citation: Medland NA et al. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2015, 18:20634

http://www.jiasociety.org/index.php/jias/article/view/20634 | http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.18.1.20634




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Journal of the International AIDS Society | eISSN 1758-2652 | Editors-in-Chief: Susan Kippax and Kenneth Mayer

*2016 Journal Citation Reports® Science Edition - a Clarivate Analytics product.

Disclaimer: The Journal of the International AIDS Society is an official journal of and is published by the International AIDS Society. The costs of the Journal of the International AIDS Society are secured by the International AIDS Society. This support does not in any way affect the editorial independency of the Journal of the International AIDS Society. Material published in the journal is entirely independent of the opinion of external sponsors and the society.