A stepped-wedge randomized trial on the impact of early ART initiation on HIV patients' economic welfare in Eswatini

  1. Janina Isabel Steinert  Is a corresponding author
  2. Shaukat Khan
  3. Khudzie Mlambo
  4. Fiona J Walsh
  5. Emma Mafara
  6. Charlotte Lejeune
  7. Cebele Wong
  8. Anita Hettema
  9. Osondu Ogbouji
  10. Sebastian Vollmer
  11. Jan-Walter De Neve
  12. Sikhathele Mazibuko
  13. Velephi Okello
  14. Till Bärnighausen
  15. Pascal Geldsetzer
  1. Technical University of Munich, Germany
  2. Clinton Health Acccess Initiative, United States
  3. Duke University, United States
  4. University of Göttingen, Germany
  5. Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Germany
  6. Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Eswatini, Eswatini
  7. University of Heidelberg, Germany
  8. Stanford University, United States

Abstract

Background: Since 2015, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends immediate initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for all HIV-positive patients. Epidemiological evidence points to important health benefits of immediate ART initiation; however, the policy's economic impact remains unknown. Methods: We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial in Eswatini to determine the causal impact of immediate ART initiation on patients' economic welfare. Fourteen healthcare facilities were non-randomly matched in pairs and then randomly allocated to transition from the standard of care (ART eligibility at CD4 counts of < 350 cells/mm3 until September 2016 and <500 cells/mm3 thereafter) to the 'Early Initiation of ART for All' (EAAA) intervention at one of seven timepoints. Patients, healthcare personnel, and outcome assessors remained unblinded. Data was collected via standardised paper-based surveys with HIV-positive, ART-naïve adults who were neither pregnant nor breastfeeding. Outcomes were patients' time use, employment status, household expenditures and household wealth. Results: A total sample of 3,019 participants were interviewed over the duration of the study. The mean number of participants approached at each facility and time step varied from 4 to 112 participants. Using mixed-effects negative binomial regressions accounting for time trends and clustering, we found no significant difference between study arms for any economic outcome. Specifically, the EAAA intervention had no significant effect on non-resting time use (RR= 1.00, [CI: 0.96, 1.05, p=0.93]) or income-generating time use (RR= 0.94, [CI: 0.73,1.20, p=0.61]). Employment and household expenditures decreased slightly but not significantly in the EAAA group, with risk ratios of 0.93 [CI: 0.82, 1.04, p=0.21] and 0.92 [CI: 0.79, 1.06, p=0.26], respectively. We also found no significant treatment effect on households' asset ownership and living standards (RR=0.96, [CI 0.92, 1.00, p=0.253]). Lastly, there was no evidence of heterogeneity in effect estimates by patients' sex, age, education, timing of HIV diagnosis and ART initiation. Conclusions: Given the neutral effect on patients' economic welfare but positive effects on health, our findings support further investments into scaling-up immediate ART for all HIV patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02909218 and NCT03789448; ethical approval: Eswatini National Health Service Review Board & Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Review Board.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 2-4 and all supplementary fogures (Figures S1-S9).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Janina Isabel Steinert

    TUM School of Governance, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    For correspondence
    janina.steinert@tum.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7120-0075
  2. Shaukat Khan

    Clinton Health Acccess Initiative, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Khudzie Mlambo

    Clinton Health Acccess Initiative, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Fiona J Walsh

    Clinton Health Acccess Initiative, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Emma Mafara

    Clinton Health Acccess Initiative, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Charlotte Lejeune

    Clinton Health Acccess Initiative, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Cebele Wong

    Clinton Health Acccess Initiative, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Anita Hettema

    Clinton Health Acccess Initiative, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Osondu Ogbouji

    Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Sebastian Vollmer

    Development Economics, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Jan-Walter De Neve

    Medical Faculty and University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0090-8249
  12. Sikhathele Mazibuko

    Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Eswatini, Mbabane, Eswatini
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Velephi Okello

    Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Eswatini, Mbabane, Eswatini
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Till Bärnighausen

    Institute of Public Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Pascal Geldsetzer

    Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Dutch Postcode Lottery in the Netherlands (NA)

  • Till Bärnighausen

Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung

  • Till Bärnighausen

the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in South Africa/Mozambique

  • Till Bärnighausen

British Columbia Centre of Excellence in Canada

  • Till Bärnighausen

Doctors Without Borders

  • Till Bärnighausen

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (Award Number KL2TR003143)

  • Pascal Geldsetzer

Joachim Herz Foundation

  • Janina Isabel Steinert

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Eswatini National Health Service Review Board in July 2014 (Reference Number: MH/599C/FWA 000 15267). Respondents gave verbal and written consent before completing the interview and were informed about their right to decline or withdraw their participation at any point in time. The study was further granted an exemption for non-human subjects research from the ethics review board of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Joshua T Schiffer, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, United States

Version history

  1. Received: May 1, 2020
  2. Accepted: August 21, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 24, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 1, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Steinert et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 878
    Page views
  • 111
    Downloads
  • 6
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Janina Isabel Steinert
  2. Shaukat Khan
  3. Khudzie Mlambo
  4. Fiona J Walsh
  5. Emma Mafara
  6. Charlotte Lejeune
  7. Cebele Wong
  8. Anita Hettema
  9. Osondu Ogbouji
  10. Sebastian Vollmer
  11. Jan-Walter De Neve
  12. Sikhathele Mazibuko
  13. Velephi Okello
  14. Till Bärnighausen
  15. Pascal Geldsetzer
(2020)
A stepped-wedge randomized trial on the impact of early ART initiation on HIV patients' economic welfare in Eswatini
eLife 9:e58487.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58487

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Victoria P Mak, Kami White ... Loic Le Marchand
    Research Article Updated

    Background:

    The Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted the health and day-to-day life of individuals, especially the elderly and people with certain pre-existing medical conditions, including cancer. The purpose of this study was to investigate how COVID-19 impacted access to cancer screenings and treatment, by studying the participants in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) study.

    Methods:

    The MEC has been following over 215,000 residents of Hawai‘i and Los Angeles for the development of cancer and other chronic diseases since 1993–1996. It includes men and women of five racial and ethnic groups: African American, Japanese American, Latino, Native Hawaiian, and White. In 2020, surviving participants were sent an invitation to complete an online survey on the impact of COVID-19 on their daily life activities, including adherence to cancer screening and treatment. Approximately 7,000 MEC participants responded. A cross-sectional analysis was performed to investigate the relationships between the postponement of regular health care visits and cancer screening procedures or treatment with race and ethnicity, age, education, and comorbidity.

    Results:

    Women with more education, women with lung disease, COPD, or asthma, and women and men diagnosed with cancer in the past 5 years were more likely to postpone any cancer screening test/procedure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Groups less likely to postpone cancer screening included older women compared to younger women and Japanese American men and women compared to White men and women.

    Conclusions:

    This study revealed specific associations of race/ethnicity, age, education level, and comorbidities with the cancer-related screening and healthcare of MEC participants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Increased monitoring of patients in high-risk groups for cancer and other diseases is of the utmost importance as the chance of undiagnosed cases or poor prognosis is increased as a result of delayed screening and treatment.

    Funding:

    This research was partially supported by the Omidyar 'Ohana Foundation and grant U01 CA164973 from the National Cancer Institute.

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Gayathri Nagaraj, Shaveta Vinayak ... Dimpy P Shah
    Research Article Updated

    Background:

    Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations.

    Methods:

    This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity.

    Results:

    1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32–1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24–2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70–6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71–5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83–12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63–3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20–2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66–3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89–22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status.

    Conclusions:

    Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients.

    Funding:

    This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication.

    Clinical trial number:

    CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701.