Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2023 May 16;3(5):e0000970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000970

Retention in care among people living with HIV in the national antiretroviral therapy programme in Guinea: A retrospective cohort analysis

Kadio Jean-Jacques Olivier Kadio 1,2, Cissé Amadou 3, Saidou Diallo Thierno 4, Foromo Guilavogui 4, Fapeingou Tounkara Adrien 4, Pe Damey 4, Sow Alhassane 4, Fily Bah Fatoumata 4, Sékou Youla Souleymane 4, Diallo Ibrahima 4, Nestor Leno Niouma 4, Mboungou Lazare 4, Nyawotope Koffi Ahiatsi Arnold 4, Kaba Laye 4, Sy Zeynabou 5,6, Vallès-Casanova Ignasi 7, Wringe Alison 8,9, Hoibak Sarah 9, Koïta Youssouf 1, Xavier Vallès 9,10,11,12,*
Editor: Julia Robinson13
PMCID: PMC10187925  PMID: 37192151

Abstract

Few studies have investigated retention in HIV care in West Africa. We measured retention in antiretroviral therapy (ART) programmes among people living with HIV and re-engagement in care among those lost to follow up (LTFU) in Guinea and identified associated risk factors using survival analysis. Patient-level data were analysed from 73 ART sites. Treatment interruptions and LTFU were defined as missing a ART refill appointment by over 30 days and by over 90 days respectively. A total of 26,290 patients initiating ART between January 2018 and September 2020 were included in the analysis. The mean age at ART initiation was of 36.2 years, with women accounting for 67% of the cohort. Retention 12 months after ART initiation was 48.7% (95%CI 48.1–49.4%). The LTFU rate was 54.5 per 1000 person-months (95% CI 53.6–55.4), with the peak hazards of LTFU occurring after the first visit and decreasing steadily over time. In an adjusted analysis, the hazards of LTFU were higher among men compared to women (aHR = 1.10; 95%CI 1.08–1.12), being aged 13–25 years old versus older patients (aHR = 1.07; 95%CI = 1.03–1.13), and among those initating ART in smaller health facilities (aHR = 1.52; 95%CI 1.45–1.60). Among 14,683 patients with an LTFU event, 4,896 (33.3%) re-engaged in care, of whom 76% did so within six months from LTFU. The re-engagement rate was 27.1 per 1000 person-months (95%CI 26.3–27.9). Treatment interruptions were correlated with rainfall patterns and end of year mobility patterns. Rates of retention and re-engagement in care are very low in Guinea, undermining the effectiveness and durability of first-line ART regimens. Tracing interventions and differentiated service delivery of ART, including multi-month dispensing may improve care engagement, especially in rural areas. Further research should investigate social and health systems barriers to retention in care.

Introduction

Since 2002, antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been scaled up in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). By 2019, an estimated 25.4 million (24.5–25.6 million) people living with HIV (PLHIV) were accessing ART globally [1], the majority of whom were residing in sub-Saharan Africa where the highest burden of HIV infection occurs. In 2013, UNAIDS launched the 90-90-90 targets, which aimed to have 90% of all PLHIV knowing their HIV status, 90% of diagnosed PLHIV receiving ART and 90% of those on ART for achieving viral suppression by 2020 [1]. However, several countries, particularly those in West Africa, have not met these targets, and renewed efforts will be needed if the 95-95-95 goals are to be met for 2030 [2].

Ensuring that patients receive and adhere to ART is critical for achieving optimal clinical outcomes, including reduced risks of HIV-related morbidity and mortality [3, 4]. Furthermore, sustained adherence to ART is necessary for patients to achieve viral load suppression which can reduce the risk of treatment failure, emerging drug resistance and onward HIV transmissions [59]. A cohort study of ART programmes in sub-Saharan Africa estimated retention in care among PLHIV on ART to be 67% at 5 years of follow-up, falling to around 50% at 5 years for West Africa [10]. A meta-analysis of studies from LMIC found that LTFU was highest among men, older patients, single persons, those who were unemployed, those with lower educational attainment, those with advanced WHO stage at initiation, those not having disclosured their HIV status, those not receiving cotrimoxazole prophylactic therapy when indicated, those receiving ART at a secondary level facility, and those with more recent year of ART initiation [11]. However, the underlying root causes of poor retention in care are likely to include a complex intersection between health systems, social and individual-level barriers, such as supply chain issues, stigma and lack of adequate follow-up or social support [12]. Additional environmental factors, such as poor accesability of roads during the rainy season, may also explain interrupted access to ART clinics at certain times during the year in some settings.

Loss to follow-up (LTFU) is a term that is used to cover an amalgamation of outcomes including death, default or not-documented transfer between ART clinics, and is usually defined as missing a scheduled ART clinic appointment by over 90 days with no documented cause [13]. In most analyses of ART retention, treatment interruptions of up to 90 days are generally not considered, leading to an under-estimate of the risk of treatment failure, and an over-estimate of the proportion of PLHIV who are effectively on ART. The majority of studies that have investigated risk factors for LTFU from ART services in sub-Saharan Africa have been undertaken in the Southern and Eastern region, with relatively little research in West and Central Africa [10], and no published data from Guinea. Most analyses have considered individual and clinic-level risk factors for LTFU, and few have assessed the role of environmental conditions such as rain patterns in farming subsistence economies. These seasonal factors may drive migration patterns or lead to individuals prioritizing economic activities over attending health facilities to obtain ART refills, particularly when distances are long to reach ART sites.

Furthermore, studies investigating re-engagement in care following an LTFU event are scarce in sub-Saharan Africa, despite the higher HIV transmission risks among people who interrupt ART [14]. These studies have shown a substantial number of patients experience treatment interruptions, with risk factors for re-engagement in care being similar to those associated with retention in care [15, 16].

The aim of this study was to estimate retention in antiretroviral therapy (ART) programmes among people living with HIV and re-engagement in care among those lost to follow up (LTFU) in Guinea and identified associated risk factors for these two outcomes. In addition, we assessed correlations between ART interruptions and rainfall seasonal patterns.

Materials and methods

Study setting

Guinea has a population of 11.6 million habitants living across a land mass of 245,857 km2 which varies from semi-arid climate in the north-east (i.e. the region of Kankan) to tropical in the south (i.e. the region of N’Zérékoré). Around 1.7 milion people live in the capital, Conakry. In 2019, HIV prevalence was estimated at 1.4% among 15–49 year olds [17], with higher prevalence observed among key populations, including men who have sex with men (11.4%) and female sex workers (10.7%) [17]. Of the estimated 110,000 (95%CI = 95,000–130,000) PLHIV in 2019, an estimated 57% (95% CI:49–66%) were on ART [17].

HIV treatment was first made available through the public sector in 2005, and was gradually decentralised thereafter, resulting in ART being available in 85 health facilities in eight administrative regions (Conakry, Boké, Farahnah, Mamou, Kindia, N’Zérékoré, Labé and Kankan) by the end of 2019, with around half of the PLHIV in care followed up in sites located in the capital Conakry. The “test and treat” strategy was adopted as national policy in 2017.

Study design

A retrospective longitudinal analysis of the ART patient cohort was carried out using routine data obtained through the Modèle Simplifié Reproductible (MSR) software, a Microsoft Excel-based tool that was developed to monitor the ART patient cohort and ART stocks and implemented in health centres. For the purposes of this analysis, data were used from 73/85 (86%) sites (Fig 1), representing an estimated of 95% of the national ART patient cohort.

Fig 1. Distribution of ART sites in Guinea included in the analysis (N = 73).

Fig 1

The base layer of the map could be obtained at https://gadm.org/download_country.html.

The dataset included visit level data, including sex, age at ART initiation, date of ART initiation, therapeutic regime and attendance dates for ART refills. ART refills were scheduled on a monthly basis. Visits are ascertained at site level and each patient has an unique identifier upon enrolement, but a new identifier was generated if a patient moves to another site without documentation or self-identification as PLVIH under ART. The follow-up period was from January 2018 until December 2020.

Inclusion criteria

Patients were included in the analysis if they had ever initiated ART between January 2018 and September 2020 (therefore, excluding those with an observation period of less than 90 days) and if they were aged 13 years and over at the time of ART initiation. Patients initiating treatment before 2018 were excluded from the analysis, since the MSR was not fully implemented and the date of treatment initiation was not available for most of them.

Outcome definitions

A LTFU event was defined as not attending the scheduled ART refill for at least 90 consecutive days (three consecutively monthly refill appointments missed). Re-engagement was defined as a return to the cohort following a LTFU event. A treatment interruption was defined as not attending a scheduled ARV refill for more than 30 days. We also calculated the percentage of patients that did not attended their scheduled ART refill appointment for each month. Multi-month refills were taken into account when considering the LTFU start date.

Data management and statistical methods

Data from the MSR were obtained in csv format from the 73 included ART sites and consolidated into dta and R format in a single dataset. Data cleaning was carried out and duplicates were removed. The cleaned data were analysed using the statistical packages Stata 14.0 software and R vs. 4.1.2.

Continuous variables were described using means and Standard Deviation (SD) after testing for normal distribution (Skewness and Kurtois test), and using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) for skewed distributions. Proportions were described for categorical variables.

Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate i) the cumulative probability of patients who were retained in care at 6, 12 and 24 months following ART initiation and ii) the cumulative probability of re-engagement in care within 6 and 12 months after an LTFU event, stratified by sex and region. Smoothed hazard rates were estimated to identify peaks of LTFU and re-engagement. Rates of LTFU and re-engagement were assessed per 1000-person months of follow-up. Cox regression was used to identify crude and adjusted factors associated with LTFU and re-engagement using Hazard Ratios (HR) with corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI), including clustering effect adjustments at the facility level. Cox models were adjusted for clustering of patients in facilities using cluster-based robust standard errors within facilities. A p-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Rainfall data were acquired from ERA5-Land reanalysis dataset [18] through the Copernicus Climate Change Service. ERA5-Land is a global land-surface atmospheric dataset with a spatial resolution of 9km spanning between 1981 to present. For the correlation analysis between rainfall and treatment interuptions, monthly means of precipitation data were used, averaged for each administrative region of Guinea. Both time series (precipitation and treatment interruption) were smoothed with spline interpolation method with a degree factor of 5. Linear correlation between the two variables was measured with Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

Ethical issues

Data were anonymized before the procurement of the MSR data sets. The study received ethical approval from the Comité National d’Éthique pour la Recherche en Santé (Ministry of Health from Guinea), with the reference number 139/CNERS/21. Consent to participants was waived by the Ethical Board due to the anonymity of the data sets used during the analysis.

Results

Participant characteristics

A total of 26,290 patients with unique identifiers were included in the retrospective analysis (in Table 1).

Table 1. Participant characteristics.

  Overall 2018 2019 2020
Category N % N % N % N %
Total 26290 100 10548 40.1 8078 30.7 7664 29.2
Sex 1
Male 8597 32.7 3461 32.8 2631 32.6 2505 32.7
Female 17690 67.3 7087 67.2 5444 67.4 5159 67.3
Age at initiation (years)
13–25 5322 20.2 2212 21.0 1578 19.5 1532 20.0
26–35 8911 33.9 3694 35.0 2611 32.3 2606 34.0
36–45 6538 24.9 2455 23.3 2181 27.0 1902 24.8
>45 5299 20.2 2101 19.9 1609 19.9 1589 20.7
Missing 220 0.8 86 0.8 99 1.2 35 0.5
Median (IQR) 35 (27–43) 34 (27–43) 35 (28–43) 35 (28–44)
Facility level
Capacity quartiles 2
Lowest -25 (5–500; N = 44) 6688 25,4 2334 22.1 1533 19.0 2413 31.5
25–50 (523–848; N = 11) 6477 24,6 2596 24.6 2031 25.1 1838 24.0
50–75 (878–1294; N = 7) 6672 25.4 2837 26.9 2224 27.5 1894 24.7
75–100 (1298–2613; N = 4) 6453 24.6 2781 26.4 2290 28.4 1519 19.8
NGO-supported 6332 24.1 2601 24.7 1906 23.6 1825 23.8
Government-run 19958 75.9 7947 75.3 6154 76.4 5839 76.2
Region
Conakry 12293 46.8 5343 50.7 3542 43.9 3408 44.5
Boké 2770 10.5 965 9.2 973 12.1 832 10.9
Kindia 3338 12.7 1401 13.3 1070 13.3 867 11.3
Labe 975 3.7 303 2.9 396 4.9 276 3.6
Mamou 647 2.5 257 2.4 219 2.7 171 2.2
Kankan 2619 10.0 1059 10.0 769 9.5 791 10.3
Farahnah 883 3.7 204 1.9 334 4.1 345 4.5
N’Zérékoré 2765 10.5 1016 9.6 775 9.6 974 12.7

1. Three missing values. 2. The quartiles are defined such that the lowest quartile includes the facilities that encompass 25% of patients engaged in care during the study period. Into brackets we indicate the intervals of number of patients included in each quartile number and N represents the number of facilities included in each strata.

The median number of patients on ART across the 73 facilities was 873, with a range from 5 to 2,562. Overall, 17,690 (67.3%) participants were female and the overall mean age at ART initiation was 36.2 years (SD = 12.1), being lower among women at 34.0 years (SD = 11,5) compared to men [40.8 years (SD = 12.1; p<0.001)]. 12,293 (46.8%) of participants were followed-up in centers located in the capital Conakry. 10,548 (40.1.%) participants had initiated ART in 2018. 74.1% of patients were prescribed Lamiduvine+Tenofovir+Efavirenz (TDF+3TC+EFV).

Cumulative probability of retention on ART

55.9% (N = 14,687) of patients experienced at least one LTFU event during the study period, with this being higher in men compared to women (59.7% vs. 54.0.%, p<0.001). The median time to LTFU was of 12 months (IQR 11–12). The cumulative probability of retention in care at 6 months after ART initiation was 65.9% (95%CI 65.3–66.5%), declining to 48.7% at 12 months (95%CI 48.1–49.4%) and 34.1% at 24 months (95%CI 33.4–34.8). The cumulative probability of retention was higher among women compared to men (Fig 2A) and differed by region (Fig 2B), with a higher probability of retention among PLHIV who initiated ART in a facility in Conakry region compared to those who initiated treatment elsewhere.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

a and b: Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative probability of retention on ART by sex (a) and by region (b).

Rates and risk factors for loss to follow up

The analysis considered 22,455 persons-years (PY) of follow-up during which 14,686 LTFU events occurred. The estimated rate of LTFU was 54.5 per 1000-person-months (95% CI 53.5–55.4), but varied by region, being lower in Conakry at 45.5 per 1000-person-months (95%CI 44.4–46.7; see Table 2).

Table 2. Rates and crude and adjusted HR for LTFU, by baseline characteristics of patients.

Category Crude Adjusted 2
Sex PY N of events Rate1 95%CI HR 95%CI p HR 95%CI p
Male 6850 5129 62.4 (62.4–64.1) 1.09 (1.07–1.11) <0.001 1.10 (1.08–1.12) <0.001
Female 15604 9554 51.0 (50.0–52.1) 1 --- --- 1 ---  --- 
Year at initiation
2018 10651 8127 63.6 (62.2–65.0) 2.02 (1.92–2.12) <0.001 2.10 (1.72–2.55) <0.001
2019 7691 4306 46.7 (45.3–48.1) 1.34 (1.28–1.42) <0.001 1.42 (1.17–1.72) <0.001
2020 4113 2253 45.6 (43.8–47.6) 1 --- --- 1 --- ---
Region
Out of Conakry2 10884 8362 64.0 (62.7–65.4) 1.31 (1.27–1.35) <0.001 1.34 (0.89–2.01) 0.2
Conakry 1158 6324 45.5 (44.4–46.7) 1 ---  --- 1 ---  --- 
Age
13–25 4473 3083 57.4 (55.4–59.5) 1.04 (0.99–1.09) 0.08 1.07 (1.02–1.13) 0.009
25–35 7592 4991 54.8 (53.3–56.3) 1 ---  ---  1 ---  --- 
35–45 5744 3511 50.9 (49.3–52.6) 0.94 (0.89–0.98) 0.002 0.93 (0.87–0.99) 0.03
>45 4440 2972 55.8 (53.8–57.8) 1.02 (0.97–1.06) 0.5 0.99 (0.93–1.05) 0.8
Size of facility (IQR)
<25 4310 4376 84.6 (82.1.-87.2) 1.60 (1.21–1.31) <0.001 1.52 (1.00–2.33) 0.05
25–50 6278 2834 38.9 (37.6–50.4) 0.85 (0.81–0.89) <0.001 0.82 (0.46–1.46) 0.5
50–75 5376 3903 60.1 (58.6–62.4) 1.26 (1.21–1.32) <0.001 1.09 (0.61–1.94) 0.8
>75 6490 3473 44.6 (43.1–46.1) 1 --- ---  1 ---  ---
Facility type
NGO-supported 5535 3711 55.9 (54.1–57.7) 1.04 (1.00–1.08) 0.04 1.28 (0.76–2.15) 0.2
Government-run 16920 10975 54.1 (53.1–55.1) 1 --- --- 1 --- ---

1. Rates are expressed as 1000 person-months; 2. Rates for regions outside of Conakry were 45.5 (95%CI = 46.0–48.6) for Boke, 102.3 (95%CI = 94.5–111.1) for Faranah, 107.4 (95%CI = 102.8–112.3.) for Kankan, 62.4 (95%CI = 59.8–65.1 for Kindia), 43.2 (95%CI = 39.5–47.3) for Labe, 58.0 (95%CI = 52.3–64.4) for Mamou and 57.3 (95%CI = 54.5–60.2) for N’Zérékoré. 2. Adjusted by all study variables and clustering effects within facilities.

Furthermore, rates of LTFU substantially differed across the regions outside of Conakry, ranging from 102.3 per 1000-person-months in Faranah (95%CI 94.5.-111.1) to 43.2 per 1000-person-months in Labe (95% CI 39.5–47.3) (Table 2). The peak hazards of LTFU was observed just after ART initiation, with 30.9% of all LTFU events occurring after the first visit, and steadily decreased thereafter (Fig 3A). In the crude analysis, LTFU was associated with male gender, being in care outside of Conakry region, being followed in facilities with the smaller patient cohort size and being enrolled in ART sites that were government-run (Table 2).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

a and b: Smoothed hazard estimates of LTFU (a) and re-engagement (b) by year, stratified by region.

In the adjusted analysis, which included adjustements for clustering effects at facility level, the hazards of LTFU were higher among men compared to women (aHR = 1.10; 95%CI = 1.08–1.12), among those aged 13–25 years old compared to those aged 25 to 35 at initiation (aHR = 1.07; 95%CI = 1.02–1.13), among those initating ART in a health facility with a smaller patient cohort (aHR = 1.52; 95%CI = 1.0o-2.33).

Cumulative probability of re-engagement in care

Among 14, 684 individuals who experienced a LTFU event included in this cohort, 9,554 (65.1%) were women and the mean age was 36.1 yrs. (SD = 12.2). 4,896 (33.3%) re-engaged in treatment during the study period. Among those who re-engaged, 76.4% did so during the first six months after the LTFU event (see Fig 3B). The cumulative probability of re-engagement was 27.1% at 6 months (95%CI = 26.3–27.9) and 35.2% at 12 months (95%CI = 34.4–36.1) after LTFU. Re-engagement rates were higher among females (Fig 4A) and among patients enrolled in ART sites outside of Conakry region (Fig 4B).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

a and b: Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative probability of re-engagement to ART by sex (a) and by region (b).

Rates and risk factors for re-engagement in care

A total of 15,352 PY were included in the analysis and the re-engagement rate was 26.6 per 1000 person-months (95% CI: 25.8–27.3) (see Table 3).

Table 3. Rates and crude and adjusted HR for re-engagement by baseline characteristics of patients.

Category Crude Adjusted 2
Sex PY N of events Rate (95%CI) 1 HR 95%CI p HR 95%CI p
Male 5501 1608 24.4 (23.2–25.6) 1 --- <0.001 1 --- ---
Female 9846 3288 27.8 (26.9–28.9) 1.12 (1.06–1.19) 1.17 (1.09–1.25) <0.001
Year of initiation
2018 10828 3001 23.1 (22.3–23.9) 1.10 (0.99–1.22) 0.09 1.04 (0.81–1.23) 0.5
2019 3721 1487 33.3 (31.7–35.0) 1.15 (1.03–1.29) 0.01 1.00 (0.82–1.30) 0.9
2020 780 408 43.6 (39.6–48.1) 1 --- --- 1 --- ---
Out of Conakry2 7889 3193 33.7 (32.6–34.9) 1.60 ( 1.51–1.70) <0.001 2.32 (1.10–4.89-) 0.03
Conakry 7463 1703 19.0 (18.1–19.9) 1 --- --- --- --- ---
Age (years)
13–25 5204 756 25.9 (24.1–27.8) 0.97 (0.89–1.05) 0.4 0.96 (0.88–1.04) 0.3
25–35 5068 1631 26.8 (25.5–28.2) 1 --- --- 1 --- ---
35–45 3936 1345 28.5 (27.0–30.0) 1.05 (0.98–1.13) 0.2 1.04 (0.92–1.17) 0.5
>45 3835 1162 25.2 (23.8–26.7) 0.95 (0.88–1.03) 0.2 0.96 (0.88–1.03) 0.3
Size of facility (IQR)
<25 4472 870 16.2 (15.2–17.3) 1 --- --- 1 --- ---
25–50 3828 1089 23.7 (22.3–25.2) 1.43 (1.31–1.56) <0.001 1.56 (1.07–2.26) 0.02
50–75 3794 1183 26.0 (24.5–27.5) 1.58 (1.45–1.72) <0.001 1.82 (1.02–3.25) 0.04
>75 3258 1754 44.9 (42.8–47.0) 2.51 (2.32–2.73) <0.001 3.17 (1.47–6.84) 0.003
Facility type
NGO-supported 4029 1002 20.7 (19.5–22.1) 1 --- --- --- --- 0.8
Government-run 11323 3894 28.7 (27.8–29.6) 1.33 (1.24–1.42) <0.001 1.10 (0.54–2.20)

1. Rates are expressed per 1000 person-months. 2. Rates for regions outside of Conakry were of 34.3 (95%CI = 31.6–37.4) for Boke, 17.4 (95%CI = 14.5–20.8) for Faranah, 29.8 (95%CI = 27.6–32.1) for Kankan, 56.6 (95%CI = 53.5–60.0) for Kindia, 27.1 (95%CI = 23.1–31.8) for Labe, 19.8 (95%CI = 16.2–24.2) for Mamou and 24.1 (95%CI = 22.0–26.5) for N’Zérékoré. 2. Adjusted by all study variables and clustering effects within facilities.

The crude analysis showed that being female, being followed up outside Conakry, being enrolled in facilities with larger patient cohorts, and being enrolled in government-run facilities were associated with higher rates of re-engagement. In the adjusted analysis, which included adjustments for clustering effects at the facility level, the same variables remained associated with higher rates of re-engagement: the hazards of re-engagement were higher among females compared to males (aHR = 1.16; 95%CI = 1.08–1.24), among those being followed in facilities outside of Conakry region (aHR = 2.02; 95%CI = 1.08–3.79), and those enrolled in facilities with larger patient cohorts (aHR = 3.17; 95%CI = 1.47–6.84), but not among those enrolled in government-run facilities.

Retention in care seasonality and rainfall patterns

Trends in ART treatment interruptions and LTFU demonstrated a clear seasonal pattern, showing a negative correlation with rainfall (Pearson’s coefficient of -0.57) in the regions outside of Conakry (Fig 5A) with a peak in treatment interruptions from May to September during 2018 and 2019. In contrast, we found a weak correlation between rainfall and treatment interruptions in the Conakry region (Pearson’s coefficient of -0.06, Fig 5B).

Fig 5.

Fig 5

a-c: Rainfall pattern and proportion of treatment interruptions in regions out of Conakry and Conakry region (5a and 5b) RR of treatment interruptions by month of follow-up (5c)1,2,3,4. 1. The Y axis on the lefthand side shows the proportion of treatment interruptions, defined as the percentage of patients with scheduled appointments that did not attend the clinic, and the righthand the average rainfall in the entire country. 2. Data includes the period spanning between January 2018 to May 2020. 3. Includes all patients which had at last one registered visit during the study period. 4. RR of proportion of treatment interruptions between patients followed-up out of Conakry and in Conakry region.

A peak of treatment interruptions was consistently observed in January across Guinea in 2019 (23.2%) and 2020 (23.0%), alongside the peaks in September 2018 (18.5%) and 2019 (19.2%), at the end of the rainy season outside of Conakry (Fig 5A). However, 68.6%, 49.1%, 75.5% and 79.4% of those interrupting treatment returned to the cohort within three months, respectively.

Discussion

Our longitudinal analysis showed worringly poor rates of retention in care among ART patients who enrolled in the Guinean national HIV treatment programme between January 2018 and September 2020, with a 12-month retention rate of 42.1% among men and 51.0% among women. These rates are notably lower than the 76.8% observed elsewhere in Africa [10], and in the neighboring country of Mali where it reached 84.3% [19]. The peak hazard of LTFU occurred after the first visit, in line with findings from elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa [2024]. The very high rates of attrition from ART in this setting were tempered by reasonable rates of re-engagement in care, with 35.2% of patients who had experienced LTFU being back on ART within 12 months after a LTFU event. However, the rate of re-engagement was consistent with findings from Zambia where it was 51.4% (95% CI = 33.2–72.5%) [15] and similar to the observed rate in Mali (39.0%) [16]. The poor retention in care and regular treatment interruptions observed in our study are of great concern, given the associated risks of treatment failure [58, 25], development of ARV resistance [46, 25, 26], and increased transmission of HIV drug-resistant strains.

Our analysis showed that predictors of LTFU were similar to those for re-engagement in care, as observed in other recent studies in the region [10, 15, 16, 19], with the exception of being followed in an urban facility [15]. This suggest that drivers of retention differ in rural and urban areas. As demonstrated in several other African studies, we also found higher rates of LTFU among men and after the first visit [10, 27, 28]. We also found that young patients aged 13 to 25 years old experienced higher rates of LTFU and lower re-engagement rates compared to older patients in line with previous studies in sub-Saharan Africa [29], possibly explained by greater HIV-related stigma [30], and lesser ability or resources to access ART clinics. Interventions tailored to young people living with HIV have not been implemented in Guinea, but have shown great promise in other countries and could be adapted to the Guinean context [31]. Finally, important regional differences in retention to care were observed. These may be explained by various factors, including those relating to cultural and religious beliefs, climatic differences (from semi-arid in Kankan to tropical in N’Zérékoré) and consequent patterns of farming, the presence of informal mining in certain regions (i.e. Kankan which shows the highest rate of LTFU) which attract highly mobile populations, the existence of PLHIV associations, stock-outs and distance to quality ART care provision.

We found some evidence of clustering at the facility level in terms of region, size and facility type, suggesting some differences in the effectiveness of service delivery in relation to these factors, which denotes most probably an important influence of the quality of the service provided in each setting. In contrast, the clustering effect was barely observed for sex and age (similar CI between when including or excluding clustering adjustements), which denotes that these individual-level factors are independent of the quality of service provided (i.e. there is no discrimination over gender). Further qualitative research is merited to elicit social and health systems factors that influence retention in care in this setting, including the quality of services and cultural factors.

The poorer retention and lower re-engagement among patients attending NGO-supported clinics may be due to a higher proportion of advanced stage patients being referred there, resulting in higher mortality rates. The observed associations between rainfall patterns and treatment interruptions outside of the region of Conakry suggest that conditions related to climatic factors undermine access to treatment sites and should be further evaluated. Higher rates of treatment interruptions aligned with periods of increased farming activities that occur just before the peak of the rainy season. During the soudure period, before the new harvest, resources stored after the last farming season are almost gone, and it may be that PLHIV are forced to make a difficult choice between reaching ART centres and continuing to undertake farming activities. Furthermore, Guinea’s road infrastructure is poor, with conditions exacerbated during the rainy season which may play a synergistic role in decreasing access [32]. Food insecurity and lack of economic resources for transportation to ART sites has been associated with LTFU in other sub-Saharan African countries [3335]. These observations underscore the sensitivity of retention in care to economic crises, as well as droughts and floods associated with climate change [36]. The increase in the rate of treatment interruptions at the end of the year may be explained by cultural norms that encourage the population to return to their birth home during the end-of-year period for celebrations (PNLSH, personal communication). Analyses of the association between rainfall in the catchment area of a clinic and the proportion of patients who missed a clinic visit at this particular clinic were more complicated to interpret because other unassessed factors could explain these differences including local-level ARV stock-outs, cultural practices, migratory patterns and service quality, some of which are also linked to climatic patterns.

The underlying factors should be addressed through the introduction of multi-month dispensing of ART where stock levels permit. In addition, a comprehensive package of measures to improve ART retention could include nutritional support to food insecure patients, tracing activities, pshychosocial support, especially following ART initiation and during months where attrition tends to peak.

There are various limitations that need to be taken into account when interpreting our findings. Firstly, as in other countries with weak tracing and vital registration systems, the proportion of patients LTFU who had in fact self-transferred to another clinic or died could not be determined in our study. Our LTFU rate is likely over-estimated as studies from other contexts at a similar stage of scaling up ART have estimated that over 20% of patients LTFU patients had in fact died [10]. Furthermore, undocumented transfers to another clinic lead to an over-estimate of the number of PLHIV who have ever initiated ART, and under-estimates of retention in care rates but would lead to over-estimates of the number of PLHIV on ART as well as under-estimates of retention in care rates [3740]. Similarly, we were unable to estimate mortality outcomes and so we could not distinguish between patients who had defaulted but remained alive, and those who had died. Efforts to strengthen the tracing system, including follow up calls and visits once scheduled appointments are missed, would improve retention and also enable more accurate estimates of the effectiveness of the ART programme to be generated. Furthermore, implementing procedures to facilitate inter-clinic transfers would also improve the accuracy of estimates of the number of PLHIV who are LTFU.

In conclusion, our study demonstrated high levels of LTFU and re-engagement in care, undermining the effectiveness and durability of first-line ART regimens. Tracing systems and clinic transfer procedures should be strengthened to more accurately ascertain the number of deaths and self-transfers which would enable the true number of persons LTFU to be determined. Nevertheless, even if LTFU rates are over-estimated, the rates of retention in care are sub-optimal in this setting as demonstrated by the high rate of re-engagement in care following treatment interruptions. Several studies have shown that multi-month dispensing and other differentiated service delivery models of ART [41] may improve care engagement, especially in rural areas [42, 43]. These interventions are slowly being introduced in Guinea, and subsequent evaluations of retention in care will be useful for further refining their application in this context. A promising strategy would be the use of long-acting injectable ART which may reduce HIV treatment barriers with monthly or bi-monthly administration. However, evidence about feasibility and implementation considerations in LMICs is still lacking [44].

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Relative Risk of treatment interruptions between patients followed-up out in facility sites out of Conakry vs. Conakry region by month of follow-up (from February 2018 to May 2020)1.

1We included facilities with the larger cohorts (>300 patients) from each patients. Faranah region was excluded due the low numbers included in each site.

(TIFF)

S1 Data

(ZIP)

Acknowledgments

We grateful acknowledge the ART health providers for their valuable support to PLHIV, and the PLNSH team.

Data Availability

Data are accessed upon request and after approval of the competing ethical board. Data has been made available to reviewers attached in a compressed file with data dictionary and basic instructions alongside an accessible URL. Data has been anonymized according to current rules.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the Global Fund to fight against AIDS, malaria and Tuberculosis (KK, CA, ST, FG, FA, PD, SA, FF, SS, DI, NN, MM, KA, KL and KY); Grant num. GIN-H-MOH. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.UNAIDS. AIDS Info online database. Available at https//www.aidsinfoonline.org/devinfor/libraries/aspx/dataview.aspx. Last access in December 2020.
  • 2.UNAIDS. 2020 Global AIDS update. Available at https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2020/global-aids-report. Accessed July 15 2021.
  • 3.Stricker SM, Fox KA, Baggaley R, Neugssie E, de Pee S, Grede N. et al. Retention in Care and Adherence to ART are Critical Elements of HIV Care Interventions. AIDS Behav. 2014. doi: 10.1007/s10461-013-0598-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.World Health Organization (WHO). Adherence to long-term therapies. Evidence for action; January 2003. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42682/1/9241545992.pdf. Accessed June 15 2021 [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bertagnolio S, De Luca A, Vitoria M, Essajee S, Penazzato M, Hong SY, et al. Determinants of HIV drug resistance and public health implications in low- and middle-income countries. Antivir Ther. 2012. doi: 10.3851/IMP2320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ahoua L, Guenther G, Pinoges L, Anguzu P, Chaix ML, Le Tiec C, et al. Risk factors for virological failure and subtherapeutic antiretroviral drug concentrations in HIV-positive adults treated in rural northwestern Uganda. BMC Infect Dis. 2009. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-9-81 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gordon LL, Gharibian D, Chong K, Chun H. Comparison of HIV Virologic Failure Rates Between Patients with Variable Adherence to Three Antiretroviral Regimen Types. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2015. doi: 10.1089/apc.2014.0165 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Goupil de Bouillé J, Collignon M, Capsec J, Guillon L, Le Moal G, Barin F, et al. Low-level HIV viremia is associated with low antiretroviral prescription refill rates and social deprivation. AIDS Care. 2020. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2020.1806198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kiweewa F, Esber A, Musingye E, Reed D, Crowell TA, Cham F, et al. HIV virologic failure and its predictors among HIV-infected adults on antiretroviral therapy in the African Cohort Study. PLoS One. 2019. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Haas AD, Zaniewski E, Anderegg N, Ford N, Fox MP, Vinikoor M, et al. Retention and mortality on antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa: collaborative analyses of HIV treatment programmes. J Int AIDS Soc. 2018. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Frijters EM, Hermans LE, Wensing AMJ, Devillé WLJM, Tempelman HA, De Wit JBF. Risk factors for loss to follow-up from antiretroviral therapy programmes in low-income and middle-income countries. AIDS. 2020. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Skovdal M, Wringe A, Seeley J, Renju J, Paparini S, Wamoyi J, et al. Using theories of practice to understand HIV-positive persons varied engagement with HIV services: a qualitative study in six Sub-Saharan African countries. Sex Transm Infect. 2017. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2016-052977 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chi BH, Yiannoutsos CT, Westfall AO, Newman JE, Zhou J, Cesar C, et al. International Epidemiologic Databases to Evaluate AIDS Collaboration. Universal definition of loss to follow-up in HIV treatment programs: a statistical analysis of 111 facilities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. PLoS Med. 2011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Grimes RM, Hallmark CJ, Watkins KL, Agarwal S, McNeese ML. Re-engagement in HIV Care: A Clinical and Public Health Priority. J AIDS Clin Res. 2016. doi: 10.4172/2155-6113.1000543 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Beres LK, Schwartz S, Simbeza S, McGready J, Eshun-Wilson I, Mwamba C, et al. Patterns and Predictors of Incident Return to HIV Care Among Traced, Disengaged Patients in Zambia: Analysis of a Prospective Cohort. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2021. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002554 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Baldé A, Lièvre L, Maiga AI, Diallo F, Maiga IA, Costagliola D, et al. Re-engagement in care of people living with HIV lost to follow-up after initiation of antiretroviral therapy in Mali: Who returns to care? PLoS One. 2020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.UNAIDS country facts. Available at https://www.unaids.org/fr/regionscountries/countries/guinea. Accessed 15 June 2021.
  • 18.Hersbach H, Bell B, Berrisford P, Hirahara S, Horányi A, Muñoz-Sabater J, et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q J R Meteorol Soc. 2020. doi: 10.1002/qj.3803 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Baldé A, Lièvre L, Maiga AI, Diallo F, Maiga IA, Costagliola D, et al. Risk factors for loss to follow-up, transfer or death among people living with HIV on their first antiretroviral therapy regimen in Mali. HIV Med. 2019. doi: 10.1111/hiv.12668 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rosen S, Fox MP, Gill CJ. Patient Retention in Antiretroviral Therapy Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review. PLoS Med. 2007. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Fox MP, Rosen S. Retention of Adult Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review and Mta-analysis 2008–2013. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ekouevi DK, Balestre E, Ba-Gomis FO, Eholie SP, Maiga M, Amani-Bosse C, et al. Low retention of HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy in 11 clinical centres in West Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 2010. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2010.02505.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Brinkhof MW, Dabis F, Myer L, Bangsberg DR, Boulle A, Nash D et al. Early loss of HIV-infected patients on potent antiretroviral therapy programmes in lower-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2008. doi: 10.2471/blt.07.044248 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hønge BL, Jespersen S, Nordentoft PB, Medina C, da Silva D, da Silva ZJ, et al. Bissau HIV cohort study group. Loss to follow-up occurs at all stages in the diagnostic and follow-up period among HIV-infected patients in Guinea-Bissau: a 7-year retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2013. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Paterson DL, Swindells S, Mohr J, Brester M, Vergis EN, Squier C, et al. Adherence to protease inhibitor therapy and outcomes in patients with HIV infection. Ann Intern Med. 2000. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-133-1-200007040-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wahl LM, Nowak MA. Adherence and drug resistance: predictions for therapy outcome. Proc Biol Sci. 2000. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Abioye AI, Soipe AI, Salako AA, Odesanya MO, Okuneye TA, Abioye AI, et al. Are there differences in disease progression and mortality among male and female HIV patients on antiretroviral therapy? A meta-analysis of observational cohorts. AIDS Care. 2015. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2015.1114994 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Asiimwe SB, Kanyesigye M, Bwana B, Okello S, Muyindike W. Predictors of dropout from care among HIV-infected patients initiating antiretroviral therapy at a public sector HIV treatment clinic in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Infect Dis. 2016. doi: 10.1186/s12879-016-1392-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Adejumo OA, Malee KM, Ryscavage P, Hunter SJ, Taiwo BO. Contemporary issues on the epidemiology and antiretroviral adherence of HIV-infected adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa: a narrative review. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015. doi: 10.7448/IAS.18.1.20049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wolf HT, Halpern-Felsher BL, Bukusi EA, Agot KE, Cohen CR, Auerswald CL. ‘It is all about the fear of being discriminated [against]…the person suffering from HIV will not be accepted’: a qualitative study exploring the reasons for loss to follow-up among HIV-positive youth in Kisumu, Kenya. BMC Public Health. 2014. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Casale M, Carlqvist A, Cluver L. Recent Interventions to Improve Retention in HIV Care and Adherence to Antiretroviral Treatment Among Adolescents and Youth: A Systematic Review. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2019. doi: 10.1089/apc.2018.0320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Group GeoHealth, Université de Geneve; Cartographie et modélisation de l’accessibilité géographique aux formations sanitaires en Guinée & Evaluation de la couverture des agents de santé et relais communautaires dans certaines communes des préfectures de Kindia et Téliméle. 46p. disponible at: https://drive.switch.ch/index.php/s/XRFGufxunJ7nFBm/download. Accessed 15 June 2022.
  • 33.Weiser SD, Tuller DM, Frongillo EA, Senkungu J, Mukiibi N, Bangsberg DR. Food insecurity as a barrier to sustained antiretroviral therapy adherence in Uganda. PLoS One. 2010. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Tuller DM, Bangsberg DR, Senkungu J, Ware NC, Emenyonu N, Weiser SD. Transportation costs impede sustained adherence and access to HAART in a clinic population in southwestern Uganda: a qualitative study. AIDS Behav. 2010. doi: 10.1007/s10461-009-9533-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Musumari PM, Feldman MD, Techasrivichien T, Wouters E, Ono-Kihara M, Kihara M. "If I have nothing to eat, I get angry and push the pills bottle away from me": A qualitative study of patient determinants of adherence to antiretroviral therapy in the Democratic Republic of Congo. AIDS Care. 2013. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2013.764391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Orievulu KS, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Ngema S, Baisley K, Tanser F, Ngwenya N, et al. Exploring linkages between drought and HIV treatment adherence in Africa: a systematic review. Lancet Planet Health. 2022. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00016-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zürcher K, Mooser A, Anderegg N, Tymejczyk O, Couvillon MJ, Nash D, et al. Outcomes of HIV-positive patients lost to follow-up in African treatment programmes. Trop Med Int Health. 2017. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12843 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wilkinson LS, Skordis-Worrall J, Ajose O, Ford N. Self-transfer and mortality amongst adults lost to follow-up in ART programmes in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Trop Med Int Health. 2015. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chammartin F, Zürcher K, Keiser O, Weigel R, Chu K, Kiragga AN, et al. Outcomes of Patients Lost to Follow-up in African Antiretroviral Therapy Programs: Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tweya H, Feldacker C, Estill J, Jahn A, Ng’ambi W, Ben-Smith A, et al. Are they really lost? "true" status and reasons for treatment discontinuation among HIV infected patients on antiretroviral therapy considered lost to follow up in Urban Malawi. PLoS One. 2013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.World Health Organization (WHO). Consolidated Guidelines on HIV Prevention, Testing, Treatment, Service Delivery and Monitoring: Recommendations for a Public Health approach. July 2021. Available at https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240031593 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Haberer JE, Sabin L, Amico KR, Orrell C, Galárraga O, Tsai AC, et al. Improving antiretroviral therapy adherence in resource-limited settings at scale: a discussion of interventions and recommendations. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017. doi: 10.7448/IAS.20.1.21371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bershetyn A, Odeny TA, Lyamuya R, Nakiwogga-Muwanga A, Diero L, Bwana M, et al. The Causal Effect of Tracing by Peer Health Workers on Return to Clinic Among Patients Who Were Lost to Follow-up From Antiretroviral Therapy in Eastern Africa: A "Natural Experiment" Arising From Surveillance of Lost Patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2017. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cresswell FV, Lamorde M. Implementation of long-acting antiretroviral therapy in low-income and middle-income countries. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2022. doi: 10.1097/COH.0000000000000732 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000970.r001

Decision Letter 0

Steve Zimmerman

10 Oct 2022

PGPH-D-22-01123

Retention in care among people living with HIV in the national antiretroviral therapy programme in Guinea: a retrospective cohort analysis

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Vallès,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. 

Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all comments raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 21 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Steve Zimmerman, PhD

PLOS Staff Editor

Journal Requirements:

1. Please send a completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist". Otherwise please declare all competing interests beginning with the statement "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:"

2. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

a. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

3. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format only and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file. Please also ensure that all files are under our size limit of 10MB.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:  LINK

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures 

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

4. We do not publish any copyright or trademark symbols that usually accompany proprietary names, eg ©, ®, or ™  (e.g. next to drug or reagent names). Please remove all instances of trademark/copyright symbols throughout the text, including ® on page 9.

5. We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list. 

6. In the online submission form, you indicated that "Data are accessed upon request and after approval of the competing ethical board. Data has been made available to reviewers attached in a compressed file with data dictionary and basic instructions alongised an accessible URL. Data has been anonymized according to current rules". All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Peer-review report of the manuscript “Retention in care among people living with HIV in the national antiretroviral therapy programme in Guinea: a retrospective cohort analysis” (PGPH-D-22-01123).

Kadio and colleagues did a retrospective cohort study of rates and predictors of loss to follow-up and re-engagement in Guinea’s national ART program. The study reports concerningly low retention rates. The study also assessed associations between rainfall patterns and missed clinic visits and showed interesting correlations.

The manuscript is overall well written. Statistical analyses of rates and predictors of loss to follow-up and re-engagement are sound. However, analyses of associations between rainfall patterns and missed visits could be improved.

The most important limitation of the study is that the authors did not adjust loss to follow-up rates for undocumented mortality and silent transfer. Therefore, rates of loss to follow-up are likely to be substantially overestimated. I suggest the authors consider the likely overestimation of loss to follow-up rates in their conclusions.

I have the following specific suggestions for improvement:

1. Analyses of rates and predictors of loss to follow-up and re-engagement:

a. Please clarify in the Methods section how you adjusted Cox models for the clustering of patients in facilities. Did you use cluster-based robust standard errors?

b. Adjusted model A could be removed from Tables 2 and 3. Analysis should be adjusted for the clustering of patients in facilities. Model A (adjusted for patient characteristics but not for clustering) is unnecessary.

c. Please confirm the correctness of the results in Tables 2 and 3. If robust standard errors were used to adjust for clustering, I would expect that additional adjustment for clustering does not affect the point estimates but widens the confidence intervals. This is also the case for some but not for all estimates. For example, in Table 2, the adjusted hazard ratio for ART initiation for the year 2008 in model A is 2.10 (95 CI 2.00-2.20). In model B (additionally adjusted for clustering), the HR is the same as in model A, and the confidence interval is wider (aHR 2.10 95% CI 1.72-2.55). However, for patient characteristics (e.g. age and sex in Table 2), the point estimates and confidence intervals are identical in models A and B. Surprisingly, Table 3 point estimates for age, sex and out of Conakry are not identical in models A and B. Please double-check these results.

d. Conclusions regarding loss to follow-up rates should take into account likely overestimation due to lack of adjustment for silent transfer and undocumented mortality.

e. The data presented in the manuscript does not support the conclusion that tracing interventions, multi-month dispensing and other age and gender-specific interventions may improve care engagement. These interventions can be mentioned in the Discussion but should not be presented as Conclusions of this study.

2. Analyses of associations between rainfall patterns and ART interruptions:

a. The analysis of rainfall patterns and ART interruptions is novel and topical and could be presented more prominently.

b. The authors evaluated correlations between the average proportion of patients who missed a clinic visit outside of Conakry (5a) and in Conakry (5b) and the average rainfall in the entire country. Could this association be assessed on a facility level? I.e. the association between rainfall in the catchment area of a clinic and the proportion of patients who missed a clinic visit at this particular clinic.

c. Why are the peaks in missed visits in January 2019 and 2020 in panel 5a marked with a dashed line? Please clarify in the figure caption.

d. The authors calculated Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) to assess associations between rainfall patterns and missed visits but did not evaluate the statistical uncertainty of this association. The authors could use more advanced statistical methods to calculate odds or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals for associations between rainfall patterns and missed visits on the facility level. For example, case-crossover designs are widely used to estimate associations between time-varying environmental exposures and health outcomes from daily time series data (see https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-14-122). Such an analysis might be beyond the scope of this study and could be presented in a separate manuscript.

Minor:

3. In the Abstract, the authors state that “patients initiating treatment between January 2018 and December 2020 were included” but in the Methods “ patients were included in the analysis if they had ever initiated ART between January 2018 and September 2020”. Please correct the end of the eligibility period in the Abstract or the Methods section.

4. Reference 10 is not a review but a cohort study

5. Please correct the number of included sites: in the Methods section, you state data from 73 facilities were used, but in the Abstract and Figure 1, you state 66 facilities were included.

6. Line 168: Were scheduled appointment dates recorded in the database? Please clarify.

7. The following sentence is unclear and should be revised: “Patients under differential treatment with frequency refills, each refill was accounted for 2 or more consecutive months of ARV refill as appropriate.”

8. I cannot follow the argument presented in lines 389-395 “The notorious effect of adjusting for clustering at facility level…”). Please rewrite this section.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000970.r003

Decision Letter 1

Miquel Vall-llosera Camps

28 Feb 2023

PGPH-D-22-01123R1

Retention in care among people living with HIV in the national antiretroviral therapy programme in Guinea: a retrospective cohort analysis

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Vallès,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 29 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Miquel Vall-llosera Camps

Staff Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

2. Please insert an Ethics Statement at the beginning of your Methods section, under a subheading 'Ethics Statement'. It must include:

a) (for human participants/donors) - A statement that formal consent was obtained (must state whether verbal/written) OR the reason consent was not obtained (e.g. anonymity). NOTE: If child participants, the statement must declare that formal consent was obtained from the parent/guardian.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. The previous reviewer was not available to comment again on your revision. We invited two additional reviewers to assess your revised manuscript. The reviewers raised minor comments that need to be addressed.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The primary purpose of the paper was to fully document poor rates of retention in care among ART patients in Guinea’s national HIV treatment program with exploration as to possible causes of poor treatment retention through analysis of patient demographics, clinic specific factors, and a unique look at rainfall and other season agricultural factors that might influence ART continuation. The authors did an admirable effort to document the poor ART retention and included in the limitations section of the manuscript the issue of lack of records of patient mortality as well as lack of records regarding patient’s receiving ART care in other facilities other than the numerous clinics included in this study. Documentation of ART adherence and clinic retention is an important area of evaluation and research, particularly for those nations that fall below continental averages for ART adherence, which was the situation for Guinea.

The literature review was focused on the issues the current paper wished to address and established that retention in HIV care/ART adherence is a challenge for multiple medical care systems. The authors pointed out that the retention rates in Guinea at the clinics in question was lower than elsewhere in Africa, including in neighboring Mali. The literature review in the introduction set the stage for the problem faced by medical providers in Guinea.

Data collection and analysis was well documented and supported the claim of low ART adherence rates among multiple clinical providers. There was analysis that indicated the low ART adherence rate was higher among rural smaller clinics than larger urban clinics. But overall, the point was well established in their analysis that low ART adherence is a problem. There appeared to be no deviations from the proposed data collection and analysis plan. The authors point out that the rainfall data did not have the specificity for definitive analysis but was adequate for the conclusions they derived regarding ART adherence.

The paper is suitable for publication but there are a few typographical errors that need

to be addressed. These include changing the word ‘African’ to ‘Africa’ in line 52; the correct word is ‘amalgamation’ in line 111; a comma was used instead of a decimal mark so that ‘1,7’ should be changed to ‘1.7’ on line 145; ‘rug-resistant’ should be changed to ‘drug-resistant on line 360; on line 373 consider whether ‘regionals’ or ‘regional’ is the best word to use; and online 420 the word ‘psychosocial’ is the correct term.

The primary concern of this reviewer is with the final recommendations of multi-month ART dispersing and targeted ART adherence strategies for men and for younger HIV positive persons. The authors clearly state the problems with treatment failure and treatment resistance that may take place with sporadic ART adherence. However, their recommendations are not complete based upon the current science of ART adherence. Injectable ART for 30 days should have been considered in the conclusion section. Whereas multi-month ART dispersing would certainly be a sound recommendation, emerging research on 30-day and potentially 60-day ART injections may offer those HIV patients ART treatment who cannot travel during rainy season or while significant agricultural labors are required. This reviewer recommends a re-submission where the authors explore additional potential solutions to poor ART retention other than multi-month dispensing and ART adherence strategies designed for men and/or for younger HIV patients.

The authors recommend further study of the effects of regional differences and climate factors on ART adherence. This would be important when implementing 30-day injectable ART since predicting the beginning of the rainy season would be essential to initiating a 30-day ART injection. The paper referred to the ability of those in Guiana to make predictions as to when the rainy season will begin.

Data collection, cleaning, and analysis details in the methodology section was sufficient to allow others to reproduce this evaluation process with other clinical providers. The authors correctly note that improved tracing systems and clinic transfer procedures would strengthen the number of deaths and self-transfers so that a more accurate assessment of those lost to follow-up could be established. This is also a sound recommendation.

In summary, the paper is of high quality, well organized and clearly written, with only minor edits required. However, the inclusion of the potential of injectable ART as a final recommendation should be made prior to publication so that the paper is most current with the treatment literature.

Reviewer #3: This is a well-written and useful manuscript, thank you.

I have a few minor comments:

1. Although it is mentioned in the limitations, it is not clear in the methods that visits are ascertained at site level only and not across the country. Please explain in the methods that if a patient moves to another facility without documentation, that will be considered LTFU. And whether the unique identifier applies across regions? Line 100- typo: disclosure- disclosure. The description of the setting is otherwise very helpful.

2. Line 112- would it not be more accurate to say “death or transfer not documented in clinic records”

3. Line 142 – typo: on- of

4. Table 1: typo 2020 column 19.8.4

5. Figure5a- has a dashed line that is not explained: please explain

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000970.r005

Decision Letter 2

Julia Robinson

17 Apr 2023

Retention in care among people living with HIV in the national antiretroviral therapy programme in Guinea: a retrospective cohort analysis

PGPH-D-22-01123R2

Dear Vallès,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Retention in care among people living with HIV in the national antiretroviral therapy programme in Guinea: a retrospective cohort analysis' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Julia Robinson

Executive Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Relative Risk of treatment interruptions between patients followed-up out in facility sites out of Conakry vs. Conakry region by month of follow-up (from February 2018 to May 2020)1.

    1We included facilities with the larger cohorts (>300 patients) from each patients. Faranah region was excluded due the low numbers included in each site.

    (TIFF)

    S1 Data

    (ZIP)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answer_reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer_answer.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are accessed upon request and after approval of the competing ethical board. Data has been made available to reviewers attached in a compressed file with data dictionary and basic instructions alongside an accessible URL. Data has been anonymized according to current rules.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES