Dataset Information

Attrition from HIV care among youth initiating ART in youth-only clinics compared with general primary healthcare clinics in Khayelitsha, South Africa: a matched propensity score analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Youth living with HIV (YLWH) are less likely to initiate antiretroviral therapy (ART) and remain in care than older adults. It is important to identify effective strategies to address the needs of this growing population and prevent attrition from HIV care. Since 2008, two clinics have offered youth-targeted services exclusively to youth aged 12-25 in Khayelitsha, a high HIV-prevalence, low-income area in South Africa. We compared ART attrition among youth in these two clinics to youth in regular clinics in the same area.

Methods

We conducted a propensity score matched cohort study of individuals aged 12-25 years initiating ART at eight primary care clinics in Khayelitsha between 1 January 2008 and 1 April 2018. We compared attrition, defined as death or loss to follow-up, between those attending two youth clinics and those attending general primary healthcare clinics, using Cox proportional hazards regression. Follow-up time began at ART initiation and ended at attrition, clinic transfer or dataset closure. We conducted sub-analyses of patients attending adherence clubs.

Results

The distribution of age, sex and CD4 count at ART initiation was similar across Youth Clinic A (N = 1383), Youth Clinic B (N = 1299) and general clinics (N = 3056). Youth at youth clinics were more likely than those at general clinics to have initiated ART before August 2011 (Youth Clinic A: 16%, Youth Clinic B: 23% and general clinics: 11%). Youth clinics were protective against attrition: HR 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71-0.92) for Youth Clinic A and 0.85 (0.74-0.98) for Youth Clinic B, compared to general clinics. Youth Clinic A club patients had lower attrition after joining an adherence club than general clinic patients in adherence clubs (crude HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.32-0.96; adjusted HR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28-0.85), while Youth Clinic B showed no effect (crude HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.48-1.45; adjusted HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.60-1.90).

Conclusions

YLWH were more likely to be retained in ART care in two different youth-targeted clinics compared to general clinics in the same area. Our findings suggest that multiple approaches to making clinics more youth-friendly can contribute to improving retention in this important group.

SUBMITTER: Cassidy T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8789247 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to compare the postoperative complications, perioperative course, and survival among patients from the multicentric Spanish Video-assisted Thoracic Surgery Group database who received video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy or video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy.MethodsFrom December 2016 to March 2018, a total of 2250 patients were collected from 33 centers. Overall analysis (video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy = 2070; video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy = 180) and propensity score-matched adjusted analysis (video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy = 97; video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy = 97) were performed to compare postoperative results. Kaplan-Meier and competing risks method were used to compare survival.ResultsIn the overall analysis, video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy showed a lower incidence of respiratory complications (relative risk, 0.56; confidence interval, 0.37-0.83; P = .002), lower postoperative prolonged air leak (relative risk, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.78; P = .003), and shorter median postoperative stay (4.8 vs 6.2 days; P = .004) than video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy. After propensity score-matched analysis, prolonged air leak remained significantly lower in video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy (relative risk, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.89; P = .02). Kaplan-Meier and competing risk curves showed no differences during the 3-year follow-up (median follow-up in months: 24.4; interquartile range, 20.8-28.3) in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.7; P = .2), tumor progression-related mortality (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-1.57; P = .2), and disease-free survival (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-1.51; P = .4) between groups.ConclusionsVideo-assisted thoracic surgery segmentectomy showed results similar to lobectomy in terms of postoperative outcomes and midterm survival. In addition, a lower incidence of prolonged air leak was found in patients who underwent video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy.

Project description:BackgroundThe primary aim of this study was to compare survival from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (NCRS) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (NCS) for the treatment of esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. The secondary aims were to compare pathological effects, short-term mortality and morbidity, and to evaluate the effect of lymph node harvest upon survival in both treatment groups.MethodsData were collected from 10 European centers from 2001 to 2012. Six hundred and eight patients with stage II or III oesophageal or oesophago-gastric junctional adenocarcinoma were included; 301 in the NCRS group and 307 in the NCS group. Propensity score matching and Cox regression analyses were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics.ResultsNCRS resulted in significant pathological benefits with more ypT0 (26.7% versus 5%; P < 0.001), more ypN0 (63.3% versus 32.1%; P < 0.001), and reduced R1/2 resection margins (7.7% versus 21.8%; P < 0.001). Analysis of short-term outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in 30-day or 90-day mortality, but increased incidence of anastomotic leak (23.1% versus 6.8%; P < 0.001) in NCRS patients. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in 3-year overall survival (57.9% versus 53.4%; Hazard Ratio (HR)= 0.89, 95%C.I. 0.67-1.17, P = 0.391) nor disease-free survival (52.9% versus 48.9%; HR = 0.90, 95%C.I. 0.69-1.18, P = 0.443). The pattern of recurrence was also similar (P = 0.660). There was a higher lymph node harvest in the NCS group (27 versus 14; P < 0.001), which was significantly associated with a lower recurrence rate and improved disease free survival within the NCS group.ConclusionThe survival differences between NCRS and NCS maybe modest, if present at all, for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. Future large-scale randomized trials must control and monitor indicators of the quality of surgery, as the extent of lymphadenectomy appears to influence prognosis in patients treated with NCS, from this large multi-center European study.