Out-of-facility individual

Out-of-facility individual models vary according to where in the community the services are provided, as well as what services are delivered and by whom. They can be divided into three categories: fixed community points, mobile outreach ART delivery, and home delivery.

Promising results have been found from fixed community points with evidence from the community drug distribution point (CDDP) model in Uganda and the community ART distribution points (PODI) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). In Uganda, cross-sectional outcomes at study endpoint for clients initiating ART from 2004 to 2009 (median time on ART 5.7 years; IQR 4.1-7.2) in the CDDP model were 69% retention, 17% dead, 6% transferred out and 9% loss to follow up (LTFU). In CDDP clients, viral load suppression (<1,000 copies/mL) was 93% (median time on ART 7.0 years; IQR 5.0-8.0) (1). In a subsequent conference abstract, LTFU was reported as 16.5% in the facility arm and 4.28% in the CDDP arm (p<0.0001) (2). A costing comparison study costed the TASO model (including TASO run clinics for new initiations and the CDDP model for stable clients) at US$74 per visit and US$332 annual cost per client compared with a mobile ART delivery model utilising expert clients to dispense ART (US$45; US$404) and a facility based nurse-led model (US$38; US$257) in Uganda (3). In the DRC, a retrospective cohort analysis found LTFU and death amongst PODI participants of 2.2% and 0.1% (at 6 months), 4.8% and 0.2% (at 12 months) and 9% and 0.3% (at 24 months) with overall crude attrition of 5.66/100py with little variation over time (4).

There is limited published evidence of utilizing mobile outreach services to distribute ART refills outside of the health facility. Two conference abstracts report on outcomes. In Swaziland, health facilities were offered a choice of three ART delivery models for implementation. One health centre and one clinic implemented an outreach service to support remote communities; one health centre chose to implement ART adherence clubs (ACs); and 12 clinics implemented community ART groups (CAGs). Twelve-month retention was 77% for the outreach service model (n=102), 96% in ACs (n=289) and 81% in CAGs (n=336) (5). In South Africa, comprehensive ART services (including ART refills) were provided by mobile outreach on South African-Zimbabwean border farms to vulnerable, highly mobile Zimbabwean migrant farm workers and their families (6). The intervention piloted a travel package, including a 3-month ART refill. Viral suppression was 91.2%, and of those clients who indicated planned travel to Zimbabwe, only 2% did not return within three months of their planned return date. 

There are two cluster randomized controlled trials from Kenya and Uganda reporting outcomes from home ART delivery models. In Uganda, there was no difference between the virological failure rates for home versus for facility care (rate ratio, RR, 1.04, 0.78-1.40; equivalence shown) (7). Mortality rates were also similar between the groups (0.95, 0.71-1.28). Health services and patient cost year were less for home delivery compared with facility refill (US$793 vs. $838 for health services and $18 vs. $54 for patient). In Kenya, no significant intervention-control differences were found with regard to detectable viral load, mean CD4 count, change in ART regimen, new opportunistic infections or pregnancy rates. Intervention clients made half as many clinic visits as did controls (8).

1. Okoboi S, Ding E, Persuad S, Wangisi J, Birungi J, Shurgold S, Kato D, Nyonyintono M, Egessa A, Bakanda C, Munderi P. Community-based ART distribution system can effectively facilitate long-term program retention and low-rates of death and virologic failure in rural Uganda. AIDS research and therapy. 2015 Nov 12;12(1):1.
2. Mpima D, Birungi J, Makabayi R, Kanters S, Luzze C. Community Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) delivery models for high patient retention and sustaining good adherence: The AIDS Support Organisation (TASO) operational reseach findings, CDC/PEPFAR funded project in Uganda. 7th IAS Conference on HIV pathogenesis, treatment and Prevention, Kuala Lumpur, 30 June-3 July 2013.
3. Vu L, Waliggo S, Zieman B, Jani N, Buzaalirwa L, Okoboi S, et al. Annual cost of antiretroviral therapy among three service delivery models in Uganda. Journal of the International AIDS Society. 2016;19(5Suppl 4)
4. Vogt F, Kalenga L, Lukela J, Salumu F, Diallo I, Nico E, et al. Decentralizing ART supply for stable HIV patients to community-based distribution centres: Programme outcomes from an urban context in Kinshasa, DRC. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 2016
5. Pasipamire L, Kerschberger B, I. Zabsonre I, Ndlovu S, Sibanda G, Mamba S, et al. Implementation of combination ART refills models in rural Swaziland. International AIDS Conference, Durban, 18-22 July 2016
6. Matambo T, Hildebrand K, C M, Wilkinson L, Van Cutsem G, Bauernfeind A, et al. Targeted adherence strategies for provision of cross border antiretroviral therapy (ART) to migrant farm workers in Musina, South Africa. 19th International AIDS Conference, Washington, 22-27 July 2012.
7. Jaffar S, Amuron B, Foster S, Birungi J, Levin J, Namara G, et al. Rates of virological failure in patients treated in a home-based versus a facility-based HIV-care model in Jinja, southeast Uganda: a cluster-randomised equivalence trial. The Lancet. 2010;374(9707):2080.
8. Selke HM, Kimaiyo S, Sidle JE, Vedanthan R, Tierney WM, Shen C, et al. Task-shifting of antiretroviral delivery from health care workers to persons living with HIV/AIDS: clinical outcomes of a community-based program in Kenya. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 2010;55(4):483-90.