Abstract
Background
Increasing access to care and treatment for HIV-infected persons is a goal in Kenya’s response to the HIV epidemic. Using data from the second Kenya AIDS Indicator Survey (KAIS 2012), we describe coverage of services received among adults and adolescents who were enrolled in HIV care.
Methods
KAIS 2012 was a population-based survey that collected information from persons aged 15–64 years that included self-reported HIV status, and for persons reporting HIV infection, use of HIV care and antiretroviral therapy (ART). Blood specimens were collected and tested for HIV. HIV-positive specimens were tested for CD4 counts and viral load.
Results
Among 363 persons who reported HIV infection, 93.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 87.2 to 99.6] had ever received HIV care. Among those receiving HIV care, 96.3% (95% CI: 94.1 to 98.4) were using cotrimoxazole prophylaxis, and 74.6% (95% CI: 69.0 to 80.2) were receiving ART. A lower proportion of persons in care and not on ART reported using cotrimoxazole (89.5%, 95% CI: 82.5 to 96.5 compared with 98.6%, 95% CI: 97.1 to 100) and had a CD4 count measurement done (72.9%, 95% CI: 64.0 to 81.9 compared with 90.0%, 95% CI: 82.8 to 97.3) than persons in care and on ART, respectively. Among persons in care and not on ART, 23.2% (95% CI: 6.8 to 39.7) had CD4 counts ≤350 cells per microliter. Viral suppression was observed in 75.3% (95% CI: 68.7 to 81.9) of persons on ART.
Conclusions
Linkage and retention in care are high among persons with known HIV infection. However, improvements in care for the pre-ART population are needed. Viral suppression rates were comparable to developed settings.
Keywords: HIV, viral suppression, antiretroviral therapy, cotrimoxazole, Kenya
INTRODUCTION
With an estimated 23.5 million people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa by year-end 2012, HIV remains one of the most serious health problems in the region.1 Timely access to HIV care and treatment significantly reduces HIV-related morbidity and improves survival for HIV-infected persons.2,3 In June 2011, the United Nations General Assembly High Level Meeting on AIDS reaffirmed the urgent need for universal access to HIV treatment by 2015.4 During the early years of treatment scale-up in sub-Saharan Africa, attention was focused on initiating eligible patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Since then, efforts to maintain patients on treatment and to ensure sustained viral suppression have become priorities.5
In 2012, an estimated 1.2 million adults and adolescents aged 15 years to 64 years were living with HIV in Kenya.6 In 2011, the Kenyan government estimated that over 60% of persons diagnosed with HIV were receiving care,7 and in 2012, they estimated that 61% of treatment-eligible adults were receiving ART.7,8 The Kenya National AIDS Strategic Plan calls for increasing and sustaining care and treatment among HIV-infected persons to reduce HIV-related morbidity and mortality, HIV transmission, the number of new HIV infections, and the socio-economic impact of HIV.9 The Government of Kenya conducted a second Kenya AIDS Indicator Survey (KAIS 2012) to collect nationally representative data on HIV indicators including use of HIV-related care and treatment services among persons who were aware of their infection. Here, we report HIV care and treatment coverage among HIV-infected persons who were aware of their HIV infection in KAIS 2012.
METHODS
Study Design, Sampling, and Population
KAIS 2012 was a national, population-based, cross-sectional household survey of adults and children aged 18 months to 64 years conducted from October 2012 through February 2013. KAIS 2012 included 9 of 10 programmatic regions in Kenya; the North Eastern region was not sampled because of regional insecurity. The KAIS 2012 methods have been presented in detail elsewhere.10 Household and individual questionnaires were administered to eligible and consenting respondents by trained interviewers. Information obtained included household and demographic characteristics, HIV testing history and status, and, among persons who reported HIV infection, use of HIV care and treatment services. Data were collected onto tablet computers (Mirus Innovations, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada) and transmitted electronically from the field to a central database in Nairobi without personally identifying information using a virtual private network. In this article, we limited our analysis to persons aged 15–64 years who self-reported having HIV infection.
Laboratory technicians collected whole blood samples from participants using CD4 stabilization tubes [Becton Dickinson (BD) Vacutainer Systems, Franklin Lakes, NJ]. At the end of each day, whole blood was used to prepare up to 4 S&S 903 dried blood spot (DBS) cards per participant using 50 μL of blood per spot (Schleicher & Schuell Bioscience Inc, Keene, NH). DBS samples were dried overnight on a drying rack, which was maintained at ambient temperature. CD4 stabilization tubes and DBS were transported several times a week to the National HIV Reference Laboratory (NHRL). At NHRL, DBS specimens were tested for HIV antibodies (Vironostika HIV-1/2 UNIF II Plus O Enzyme Immunoassay; BioMerieux, Marcy d’Etoile, France, and Murex HIV1.2.0 HIV Enzyme Immunoassay; DiaSorin, SpA, Saluggia, Italy). Specimens that tested HIV-positive were tested for CD4+ T-cell counts using the BD FACSCalibur flow cytometer (Becton Dickinson Biosciences, San Jose, CA) on whole blood samples within 7 days of blood collection. HIV-positive specimens were also tested for HIV RNA concentration using the Abbott M2000 Real-Time HIV-1 Assay (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL) on DBS specimens. Because of hemolysis during transport, more than half (53.8%) of the HIV-positive specimens received at NHRL could not be tested for CD4+ T-cell counts.10
Measures
We classified subjects as ever in care if they reported that they had ever attended a clinic to receive HIV care. Subjects were classified as currently receiving HIV care if they reported attending the clinic within the previous 6 months. Subjects who reported that they had attended the clinic within the previous 3 months were classified as being retained in HIV care. Subjects who reported that they had never received HIV care or who reported they had received care in the past but not in the previous 6 months were classified as not currently receiving HIV care. Persons who reported using ART at the time of the survey were classified as currently using ART, and persons who indicated that they had never received ART or had received ART in the past but were not currently using ART were classified as not using ART. Persons were considered eligible for ART if their CD4+ T-cell count was 350 cells per microliter or less and virally suppressed if HIV RNA concentration was <1000 copies per milliliter.11
Data Analysis
To obtain nationally representative estimates from the sample, we calculated sampling weights for each individual and household based on selection probability, taking into account cluster-level nonparticipation for both the interview and blood specimen collection. These weights were used to calculate weighted percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the Rao–Scott χ2 test to measure associations between categorical predictor and outcome variables. Associations were considered significant if the P value was <0.05. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) using the SURVEYFREQ procedure to take into account the stratified cluster design of the survey.
Ethical Approval
This survey protocol and activities were reviewed and approved by the Kenya Medical Research Institute’s Ethical Review Committee, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Institutional Review Board, and the Committee on Human Research of the University of California, San Francisco.
RESULTS
We identified 16,383 potential participants aged 15–64 years and interviewed 13,720 (83.7%). Three hundred sixty-three (2.7%, 95% CI: 2.2 to 3.1) reported that they were previously diagnosed with HIV. Of these, 68.8% (95% CI: 64.0 to 73.7) were women, 32.7% (95% CI: 27.5 to 37.9) were aged 30–39 years, 61.1% (95% CI: 54.4 to 67.9) were married or cohabiting, 41.9% (95% CI: 36.1 to 47.6) reported a primary school education or less, and 63.0% (95% CI: 56.8 to 69.2) had been employed in the past year (Table 1). The majority resided in rural areas (59.4%, 95% CI: 50.8 to 67.9). Relatively equal proportions of HIV-infected persons fell within the second and third lowest wealth quintiles (25.8%, 95% CI: 18.5% to 33.2% and 24.3%, 95% CI: 18.6 to 30.0, respectively). Just over one-third (35.3%, 95% CI: 28.7 to 41.9) had been diagnosed with HIV infection within the 24 months preceding the survey. Overall 89.9% (95% CI: 86.0 to 93.7) were in care at the time of the survey, and a small proportion (3.5%, 95% CI: 1.2 to 5.9) had received care at some point in the past but were no longer in care.
TABLE 1.
Characteristics of Adults and Adolescents Who Self-Reported Being HIV Infected, Kenya AIDS Indicator Survey 2012
| Total Unweighted, N = 363
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Unweighted, n* | Unweighted, % | Weighted % | 95% CI |
| Sex | ||||
| Men | 91 | 25.1 | 31.2 | 26.3 to 36.0 |
| Women | 272 | 74.9 | 68.8 | 64.0 to 73.7 |
| Age group, yrs | ||||
| 15–29 | 77 | 21.2 | 20.5 | 15.9 to 25.2 |
| 30–39 | 124 | 34.2 | 32.7 | 27.5 to 37.9 |
| 40–49 | 98 | 27.0 | 29.0 | 23.3 to 34.7 |
| >50 | 64 | 17.6 | 17.7 | 13.4 to 22.1 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Ever widowed | 83 | 22.9 | 21.6 | 16.3 to 26.8 |
| Married/cohabiting | 212 | 58.4 | 61.1 | 54.4 to 67.9 |
| Others | 68 | 18.7 | 17.3 | 12.9 to 21.7 |
| Highest educational attainment | ||||
| Primary or less | 162 | 44.6 | 41.9 | 36.1 to 47.6 |
| Secondary/vocational | 82 | 22.6 | 23.8 | 18.2 to 29.5 |
| College | 119 | 32.8 | 34.3 | 27.8 to 40.8 |
| Employed | ||||
| Yes | 226 | 62.2 | 63.0 | 56.8 to 69.2 |
| No | 137 | 37.7 | 37.0 | 30.8 to 43.2 |
| Region | ||||
| Nairobi | 37 | 10.2 | 8.4 | 5.6 to 11.2 |
| Central | 34 | 9.4 | 8.7 | 5.1 to 12.4 |
| Coast | 33 | 9.1 | 6.5 | 3.2 to 9.8 |
| Eastern | 38 | 10.5 | 9.6 | 5.3 to 14.0 |
| Nyanza | 145 | 39.9 | 40.0 | 31.3 to 48.8 |
| Rift Valley | 36 | 9.9 | 15.4 | 8.4 to 22.4 |
| Western | 40 | 11.0 | 11.3 | 5.6 to 17.0 |
| Residence | ||||
| Rural | 211 | 58.1 | 59.4 | 50.8 to 67.9 |
| Urban | 152 | 41.9 | 40.6 | 32.1 to 49.2 |
| Religious afflliation | ||||
| Christian | 336 | 92.6 | 94.0 | 90.1 to 97.9 |
| Muslim | 13 | 3.6 | 1.4 | 0.3 to 2.4 |
| No religion/other | 14 | 3.9 | 4.7 | 0.8 to 8.5 |
| Wealth index | ||||
| Poorest | 51 | 14.0 | 14.7 | 9.5 to 19.9 |
| Second | 92 | 25.3 | 25.8 | 18.5 to 33.2 |
| Third | 84 | 23.1 | 24.3 | 18.6 to 30.0 |
| Fourth | 84 | 23.1 | 21.4 | 15.4 to 27.5 |
| Richest | 52 | 14.3 | 13.7 | 8.9 to 18.5 |
| Time since diagnosis, months† | ||||
| ≤24 | 108 | 35.8 | 35.3 | 28.7 to 41.9 |
| 25–48 | 66 | 21.9 | 20.5 | 15.5 to 25.6 |
| 49–72 | 61 | 20.1 | 21.4 | 16.5 to 26.2 |
| >72 | 67 | 22.2 | 22.8 | 17.7 to 28.0 |
| HIV care status | ||||
| Currently in care | 326 | 89.8 | 89.9 | 86.0–93.7 |
| In care in past, but not currently in care | 10 | 2.8 | 3.5 | 1.2 to 5.9 |
| Never in care | 27 | 7.4 | 6.6 | 4.0 to 9.2 |
Because of missing responses totals vary between variables.
Data missing for 61 records.
The demographic characteristics of persons who were currently in care were similar to persons not in care (data not shown). Among persons currently in care, 69.8% (95% CI: 64.6 to 75.0) were female, 33.8% (95% CI: 28.1 to 39.4) were aged 30–39 years, 60.9% (95% CI: 53.7 to 68.2) were married or cohabiting, and 41.3% (95% CI: 35.0 to 47.5) had received primary school education or less (Table 2). We found that 81.3% (95% CI: 76.2 to 86.4) of persons who were currently in care had accessed care within 3 months of HIV diagnosis, and 83.3% (95% CI: 78.9 to 87.7) had their last clinic visit within 3 months of the survey. Ninety-six percent (95.3%, 95% CI: 94.1 to 98.4) of persons who were currently in care were taking cotrimoxazole, and 29.0% (95% CI: 22.5 to 35.4) were taking daily nutritional supplements. Overall, 85.7% (95% CI: 79.7 to 91.7) had ever had their CD4+ T-cell counts measured.
TABLE 2.
Characteristics of HIV-Infected Adults and Adolescents Who Were Currently Receiving HIV Care, Kenya AIDS Indicator Survey 2012
| Total, N = 326
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Unweighted, n* | Weighted % | 95% CI |
| Total | |||
| Sex | |||
| Men | 79 | 30.2 | 25.0 to 35.4 |
| Women | 247 | 69.8 | 64.6 to 75.0 |
| Age group, yrs | |||
| 15–29 | 62 | 18.4 | 13.8 to 23.1 |
| 30–39 | 116 | 33.8 | 28.1 to 39.4 |
| 40–49 | 89 | 29.8 | 23.9 to 35.7 |
| >50 | 59 | 18.0 | 13.4 to 22.6 |
| Marital status | |||
| Ever widowed | 76 | 21.9 | 16.2 to 27.6 |
| Married/cohabiting | 189 | 60.9 | 53.7 to 68.2 |
| Other | 61 | 17.2 | 12.8 to 21.5 |
| Highest educational attainment | |||
| Primary or less | 143 | 41.3 | 35.0 to 47.5 |
| Secondary/vocational | 75 | 23.7 | 18.2 to 29.3 |
| College | 108 | 35.0 | 28.2 to 41.8 |
| Employed | |||
| Yes | 204 | 63.2 | 57.3 to 69.2 |
| No | 122 | 36.8 | 30.8 to 42.7 |
| Region | |||
| Nairobi | 35 | 8.7 | 6.5 to 10.9 |
| Central | 30 | 8.7 | 5.6 to 11.8 |
| Coast | 29 | 6.5 | 4.1 to 9.0 |
| Eastern | 36 | 10.2 | 7.5 to 12.9 |
| Nyanza | 134 | 41.2 | 33.5 to 48.9 |
| Rift Valley | 28 | 13.7 | 8.4 to 19.0 |
| Western | 34 | 11.0 | 5.6 to 16.4 |
| Residence | |||
| Rural | 191 | 60.2 | 52.8 to 67.6 |
| Urban | 135 | 39.8 | 32.4 to 47.2 |
| Time since diagnosis, months | |||
| ≤24 | 90 | 31.6 | 24.8 to 38.3 |
| 25–48 | 62 | 21.3 | 15.8 to 26.7 |
| 49–72 | 59 | 23.0 | 17.7 to 28.2 |
| >72 | 63 | 24.2 | 18.6 to 29.8 |
| Wealth index | |||
| Poorest | 45 | 14.6 | 9.2 to 20.0 |
| Second | 84 | 26.8 | 19.0 to 34.7 |
| Third | 77 | 24.8 | 18.6 to 30.9 |
| Fourth | 73 | 20.2 | 14.3 to 26.1 |
| Richest | 47 | 13.7 | 8.9 to 18.4 |
| Time from diagnosis to entry into care, months | |||
| 3 or less | 204 | 81.3 | 76.2 to 86.4 |
| More than 3 | 48 | 18.7 | 13.6 to 23.8 |
| Time from last clinic visit, months | |||
| 3 or less | 272 | 83.3 | 78.9 to 87.7 |
| More than 3 | 53 | 16.7 | 12.3 to 21.1 |
| Current use of cotrimoxazole | |||
| Yes | 314 | 96.3 | 94.1 to 98.4 |
| No | 11 | 3.7 | 1.6 to 5.9 |
| Taking daily nutritional supplements | |||
| Yes | 93 | 29.0 | 22.5 to 35.4 |
| No | 233 | 71.0 | 64.6 to 77.5 |
| Ever had CD4+ T-cell count measured | |||
| Yes | 286 | 85.7 | 79.7 to 91.7 |
| No | 40 | 14.3 | 8.3 to 20.3 |
Because of missing responses totals vary between variables.
Of 326 persons currently in HIV care, 74.6% (95% CI: 69.0 to 80.2) were receiving ART (Table 3). A lower proportion of persons receiving ART were under 30 years of age (14.3%, 95% CI: 9.9 to 18.6) compared with those not receiving ART (30.6%, 95% CI: 20.0 to 41.2), and a higher proportion of persons on ART were retained in care (87.2%, 95% CI: 82.4 to 92.1) than persons not on ART (71.9%, 95% CI: 60.9 to 82.9). Among persons currently in care and not on ART, 10.5% (95% CI: 3.5 to 17.5) were not receiving cotrimoxazole prophylaxis, 27.1% (95% CI: 18.1 to 36.0) had never had their CD4+ T-cell counts measured, and 23.2% (95% CI: 6.8 to 39.7) were eligible for ART treatment based on the immunologic criterion at the time of the survey (CD4 ≤350 cells/μL). An additional 15.7% (95% CI: 2.6 to 28.8) had CD4+ T-cell counts between 351 and 500 cells per microliter. Among persons on ART, 75.3% (95% CI: 68.7 to 81.9) had HIV RNA concentration of <1000 copies per milliliter compared with 30.2% (95% CI: 20.7 to 39.6) of persons who were not on ART.
TABLE 3.
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of HIV-Infected Adults and Adolescents Who Were Currently Receiving HIV Care by ART* Use, Kenya AIDS Indicator Survey 2012
| Total in HIV Care†
|
Currently on ART Unweighted, N = 240‡
|
Not on ART Unweighted, N = 86§
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Unweighted, N† | Unweighted, n | Weighted % | 95% CI | Unweighted, n | Weighted % | 95% CI | P |
| Total | 326 | |||||||
| Sex | 0.2683 | |||||||
| Men | 79 | 61 | 31.9 | 25.7 to 38.0 | 18 | 25.3 | 15.7 to 34.8 | |
| Women | 247 | 179 | 68.1 | 62.0 to 74.3 | 68 | 74.7 | 65.2 to 84.3 | |
| Age group, yrs | <0.0001 | |||||||
| 15–29 | 62 | 37 | 14.3 | 9.9 to 18.6 | 25 | 30.6 | 20.0 to 41.2 | |
| 30–39 | 116 | 79 | 30.7 | 24.5 to 36.9 | 37 | 42.8 | 32.8 to 52.9 | |
| 40–49 | 89 | 73 | 33.6 | 26.7 to 40.5 | 16 | 18.7 | 9.4 to 28.0 | |
| 50 and above | 59 | 51 | 21.4 | 15.6 to 27.2 | 8 | 7.9 | 2.4 to 13.4 | |
| Marital status | 0.9198 | |||||||
| Ever widowed | 76 | 59 | 22.4 | 16.3 to 28.6 | 17 | 20.3 | 10.1 to 30.4 | |
| Married/cohabiting | 189 | 138 | 60.4 | 52.4 to 68.4 | 51 | 62.4 | 50.5 to 74.4 | |
| Other | 61 | 43 | 17.1 | 12.1 to 22.2 | 18 | 17.3 | 9.2 to 25.4 | |
| Highest educational attainment | 0.1295 | |||||||
| Primary or less | 143 | 103 | 40.4 | 32.9 to 48.0 | 40 | 43.7 | 33.6 to 53.9 | |
| Secondary/vocational | 75 | 52 | 21.5 | 15.1 to 27.9 | 23 | 30.2 | 19.4 to 41.0 | |
| College | 108 | 85 | 38.1 | 29.7 to 46.4 | 23 | 26.1 | 16.6 to 35.6 | |
| Employed | 0.3576 | |||||||
| Yes | 204 | 145 | 61.7 | 54.8 to 68.5 | 59 | 67.7 | 56.7 to 78.8 | |
| No | 122 | 95 | 38.3 | 31.5 to 45.2 | 27 | 32.3 | 21.2 to 43.3 | |
| Region | 0.5958 | |||||||
| Nairobi | 35 | 25 | 8.6 | 6.1 to 11.0 | 10 | 9.0 | 3.8 to 14.3 | |
| Central | 30 | 24 | 9.5 | 5.8 to 13.1 | 6 | 6.3 | 2.1 to 10.6 | |
| Coast | 29 | 21 | 5.9 | 4.1 to 7.7 | 8 | 8.5 | 2.2 to 14.8 | |
| Eastern | 36 | 31 | 11.7 | 7.3 to 16.0 | 5 | 6.0 | 0.6 to 11.4 | |
| Nyanza | 134 | 97 | 40.3 | 32.2 to 48.4 | 37 | 43.8 | 29.6 to 58.0 | |
| Rift Valley | 28 | 21 | 14.4 | 7.6 to 21.1 | 7 | 11.8 | 3.4 to 18.1 | |
| Western | 34 | 21 | 9.8 | 4.0 to 15.5 | 13 | 14.5 | 6.2 to 22.7 | |
| Residence | 0.8803 | |||||||
| Rural | 191 | 140 | 60.5 | 52.8 to 68.1 | 51 | 59.4 | 45.8 to 73.0 | |
| Urban | 135 | 100 | 39.5 | 31.9 to 47.2 | 35 | 40.6 | 27.0 to 54.2 | |
| Wealth index | 0.6592 | |||||||
| Poorest | 45 | 36 | 16.4 | 10.0 to 22.8 | 9 | 9.2 | 2.7 to 15.8 | |
| Second | 84 | 59 | 25.9 | 17.4 to 34.5 | 25 | 29.5 | 17.7 to 41.3 | |
| Third | 77 | 56 | 24.4 | 17.3 to 31.5 | 21 | 25.7 | 16.2 to 35.2 | |
| Fourth | 73 | 55 | 19.6 | 12.9 to 26.3 | 18 | 21.9 | 11.4 to 32.4 | |
| Richest | 47 | 34 | 13.7 | 8.1 to 19.2 | 13 | 13.7 | 6.3 to 21.1 | |
| Time from diagnosis to care, months | 0.6398 | |||||||
| 3 or less | 204 | 149 | 82.1 | 75.4 to 88.7 | 55 | 79.2 | 70.0 to 88.4 | |
| More than 3 | 48 | 34 | 17.9 | 11.3 to 24.6 | 14 | 20.8 | 11.6 to 30.0 | |
| Time since last clinic visit, months | 0.0065 | |||||||
| 3 or less | 272 | 210 | 87.2 | 82.4 to 92.1 | 62 | 71.9 | 60.9 to 82.9 | |
| More than 3 | 53 | 29 | 12.8 | 7.9 to 17.6 | 24 | 28.1 | 17.1 to 39.1 | |
| Current use of cotrimoxazole | 0.0004 | |||||||
| Yes | 314 | 236 | 98.6 | 97.1 to 100 | 78 | 89.5 | 82.5 to 96.5 | |
| No | 11 | 3 | 1.4 | 0 to 2.9 | 8 | 10.5 | 3.5 to 17.5 | |
| Ever had CD4+ T-cell count measurement | 0.0076 | |||||||
| Yes | 286 | 222 | 90.0 | 82.8 to 97.3 | 64 | 72.9 | 64.0 to 81.9 | |
| No | 40 | 18 | 10.0 | 2.7 to 17.2 | 22 | 27.1 | 18.1 to 36.0 | |
| CD4+ T-cell counts, cells/μL¶ | 0.3876 | |||||||
| ≤ 350 | 43 | 35 | 35.2 | 23.8 to 46.7 | 8 | 23.2 | 6.8 to 39.7 | |
| 351–500 | 20 | 14 | 16.2 | 6.2 to 26.2 | 6 | 15.7 | 2.6 to 28.8 | |
| >500 | 84 | 60 | 48.6 | 35.2 to 62.0 | 24 | 62.4 | 43.7 to 81.1 | |
| HIV RNA concentration, copies/mL# | <0.0001 | |||||||
| <1000 | 168 | 146 | 75.3 | 68.7 to 81.9 | 22 | 30.2 | 20.7 to 39.6 | |
| ≥1000 | 97 | 48 | 24.7 | 18.1 to 31.3 | 49 | 69.8 | 60.4 to 79.3 | |
ART, antiretroviral therapy.
Because of missing responses totals vary between variables.
Weighted percentage of persons in care who were receiving ART: 74.6% (95% CI: 69.0 to 80.2).
Includes 12 participants who were currently in care and had initiated but later discontinued ART.
Excludes 179 specimens that could not be tested.
Excludes 61 specimens that could not be tested.
DISCUSSION
The findings from KAIS 2012 provide population-level data on access to and quality of HIV care services among HIV-infected persons. Our data show evidence of success in linking HIV-infected persons who were aware of their infection into HIV care, in retaining persons in care, in the use of the recommended components of care including cotrimoxazole and ART, and in achieving viral suppression among those on ART.
Importantly, we found that 96% of HIV-infected persons currently in care were taking cotrimoxazole, highlighting progress since KAIS 2007, when 89% of HIV-infected persons who were aware of their HIV infection were taking cotrimoxazole.12 Revision of policy guidelines for care and treatment, decentralization of care and treatment services, capacity building of the health workforce, and improved procurement of supplies have contributed to improvements in the proportion of HIV-infected persons receiving care.13 Access to cotrimoxazole is used routinely by the Government of Kenya as a programmatic indicator of engagement in care; our results support its continued utility in approximating access to HIV care among HIV-infected persons. Although differences in study designs limit direct comparisons, the proportion of HIV diagnosed persons reporting current use of care in Kenya is comparable to results from other studies in the United States.14,15
Despite this progress, we also identified areas where improvement is needed. In particular, we found that persons who were in care but had not yet initiated ART were less likely to have a recent clinic visit, less likely to be receiving cotrimoxazole, and less likely to have a CD4+ T-cell count measurement than persons who were on ART. Moreover, nearly one-quarter of these individuals were eligible for ART based on the current immunologic criterion for ART initiation in Kenya. Studies from other resource-constrained settings have also found suboptimal care outcomes in the pre-ART population, including high rates of loss to follow-up, death, and failure to return to the clinic for CD4+ T-cell count testing.16–18 To a large extent, a patient’s CD4+ T-cell count determines eligibility for ART initiation. Therefore, failure to meet timely initiation of ART based on immunologic criterion can result in increased morbidity and mortality. Although the reasons for these findings have not been fully investigated, it is possible that shortages in reagents for CD4+ T-cell count testing and cotrimoxazole supplies could have impacted access to these services for pre-ART populations. Under such circumstances, health care workers prioritize care for those in greatest need, such as persons receiving ART. Such differences among persons in care must be explored further, and if adherence to clinical care guidelines is found to be suboptimal, retraining of health care staff should be prioritized. Given our findings of differential care among persons based on receipt of ART, raising the immunologic threshold for ART initiation, as recommended by the World Health Organization,19 to CD4 ≤500 cells per microliter could potentially improve retention in care and access to recommended services, resulting in better clinical outcomes.
Three-quarters of HIV-infected persons who were currently in care and on ART had achieved viral suppression. These findings are consistent with other studies that have reported that 78%–93% of persons on ART were virologically suppressed.14,15 It is possible that this is an underestimate of true population levels of viral suppression on ART. Because we did not determine the duration of ART use, some subjects may have recently started therapy and not yet reached viral suppression. Alternatively, because viral load monitoring is not currently a routine part of care, unsuppressed persons may reflect true treatment failures or poor adherence to ART.20,21 Our finding of viral suppression in 30% of persons who were not currently using ART is surprising because elite controllers of HIV infection are considered to be rare.22–24 Although a study of undiagnosed men in San Francisco had a similar finding, other factors must be considered.25 Persons receiving ART may have been misclassified, or laboratory error in the viral load results may have contributed to this finding. Furthermore, persons who reported that they were not currently receiving ART may have recently or temporarily discontinued treatment because of difficulty returning to the pharmacy for refills or insufficient drug supplies. Continued exploration of this finding is warranted, including a detailed assessment of respondents’ understanding of the question and laboratory analysis of blood samples for the presence of anti-retroviral drugs in untreated and suppressed persons.
There are limitations to consider when interpreting the findings from our study. First, we relied on self-reported data that may have underestimated the proportion of persons who were aware of their HIV infection and may have overestimated the use of care. Recall of events in the distant past may have resulted in inaccurate responses. Potential bias could have resulted from the substantial number of blood specimens that were hemolyzed and unable to be used for CD4+ T-cell measurements. However, no significant differences in demographic characteristics were observed between HIV-infected persons with and without CD4+ T-cell count data, leading us to believe that this limitation did not bias our findings. Finally, although the survey excluded the North Eastern region, this region has a HIV prevalence of <1%, and its exclusion is not likely to have impacted our findings.12
We believe that these limitations are offset by the strength of the nationally representative sample and that our estimates provide essential information on use of HIV-related care services among persons with known HIV infection. Although progress has been made in diagnosing and treating HIV-infected persons in Kenya, our study identified important priorities for the future including provision of essential medical services to persons before initiating ART. Our study also confirms that there is a loss of persons along the path from diagnosis to viral suppression, resulting in a sizable proportion of diagnosed persons in need of ART who are not receiving it and capable of transmitting infection. Continued exploration of factors that undermine providing care to all persons diagnosed with HIV infection and corrective interventions are needed.
Acknowledgments
KAIS 2012 was supported by the National AIDS and STI Control Programme (NASCOP), Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), National Public Health Laboratory Services (NPHLS), National AIDS Control Council (NACC), National Council for Population and Development (NCPD), Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC/Kenya, CDC/Atlanta), United States Agency for International Development (USAID/Kenya), University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Joint United Nations Team on HIV/AIDS, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Elizabeth Glaser Paediatric AIDS Foundation (EGPAF), Liverpool Voluntary Counselling and Testing (LVCT), African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF), World Bank, and Global Fund. This publication was made possible by support from the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief through cooperative agreements [PS001805, GH000069, and PS001814] from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Global HIV/AIDS. This work was also funded in part by support from the Global Fund, World Bank, and the Joint United Nations Team for HIV/AIDS.
The authors thank the fieldworkers and supervisors for their work during KAIS data collection and the individuals who participated in this national survey. The authors thank Joy Mirjahangir, Veronica Lee, George Rutherford, and Kevin DeCock for reviewing and providing suggestions on the manuscript. They also thank the KAIS Study Group for their contribution to the design of the survey and collection of the data set: Willis Akhwale, Sehin Birhanu, John Bore, Angela Broad, Robert Buluma, Thomas Gachuki, Jennifer Galbraith, Anthony Gichangi, Beth Gikonyo, Margaret Gitau, Joshua Gitonga, Mike Grasso, Malayah Harper, Andrew Imbwaga, Muthoni Junghae, Mutua Kakinyi, Samuel Mwangi Kamiru, Nicholas Owenje Kandege, Lucy Kanyara, Yasuyo Kawamura, Timothy Kellogg, George Kichamu, Andrea Kim, Lucy Kimondo, Davies Kimanga, Elija Kinyanjui, Stephen Kipkerich, Danson Kimutai Koske, Boniface O. K’Oyugi, Veronica Lee, Serenita Lewis, William Maina, Ernest Makokha, Agneta Mbithi, Joy Mirjahangir, Ibrahim Mohamed, Rex Mpazanje, Silas Mulwa, Nicolas Muraguri, Patrick Murithi, Lilly Muthoni, James Muttunga, Jane Mwangi, Mary Mwangi, Sophie Mwanyumba, Francis Ndichu, Anne Ng’ang’a, James Ng’ang’a, John Gitahi Ng’ang’a, Lucy Ng’ang’a, Carol Ngare, Bernadette Ng’eno, Inviolata Njeri, David Njogu, Bernard Obasi, Macdonald Obudho, Edwin Ochieng, Linus Odawo, Jacob Odhiambo, Caleb Ogada, Samuel Ogola, David Ojakaa, James Kwach Ojwang, George Okumu, Patricia Oluoch, Tom Oluoch, Kenneth Ochieng Omondi, Osborn Otieno, Yakubu Owolabi, Bharat Parekh, George Rutherford, Sandra Schwarcz, Shanaaz Sharrif, Victor Ssempijja, Lydia Tabuke, Yuko Takanaka, Mamo Umuro, Brian Eugene Wakhutu, Celia Wandera, John Wanyungu, Wanjiru Waruiru, Anthony Waruru, Paul Waweru, Larry Westerman, and Kelly Winter.
Footnotes
The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Government of Kenya.
References
- 1.Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Global Report: UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic. 2012. UNAIDS. Geneva, Switzerland: UNAIDS; 2012. [Accessed July 7, 2013]. Available at: http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/epidemiology/2012/gr2012/20121120_UNAIDS_Global_Report_2012_en.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Palella FJ, Delaney KM, Moorman AC, et al. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:853–860. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199803263381301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:493–505. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1105243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS: Intensifying Our Efforts to Eliminate HIV and AIDS. Geneva, Switzerland: UNAIDS; [Accessed July 8, 2011]. Available at: http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/document/2011/06/20110610_un_a-res-65-277_en.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hamilton A, Garcia-Calleja JM, Vitoria M, et al. Changes in antiretro-viral therapy guidelines: implications for public health policy and public purses. Sex Transm Infect. 2010;86:388–390. doi: 10.1136/sti.2010.043018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kimanga DO, Ogola S, Umuro M, et al. Prevalence and incidence of HIV infection, trends, and risk factors among persons aged 15–64 years in Kenya: results from a nationally representative study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;66(suppl 1):S13–S26. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.National AIDS Control Council (NACC) Kenya AIDS Epidemic Update 2011. Nairobi, Kenya: NAAC; 2012. [Accessed October 7, 2013]. Available at: http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/knowyourresponse/countryprogressreports/2012countries/ce_KE_Narrative_Report.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Odhiambo J, Kellogg TA, Kim AA. Antiretroviral treatment scale-up among persons living with HIV in Kenya: results from a nationally representative survey. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;66(suppl 1):S116–S122. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.National AIDS Control Council (NACC) Kenya National AIDS Strategic Plan 2009/10 – 2012/13: Delivering on Universal Access to Services. Nairobi, Kenya: NAAC; 2009. [Accessed October 8, 2013]. Available at: http://www.nacc.or.ke/nacc%20downloads/knasp_iii.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Waruiru W, Kim AA, Kimanga DO, et al. The Kenya AIDS indicator survey 2012: rationale, methods, description of participants, and response rates. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;66(suppl 1):S3–S12. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.National AIDS and STI Control Program (NASCOP) Guidelines for Antiretroviral Therapy in Kenya 4th Edition. Nairobi, Kenya: NASCOP; 2011. [Accessed October 1, 2013]. Available at: http://nascop.or.ke/library/ART%20guidelines/Guidelines%20for%20Antiretroviral%20Drug%20Therapy%20in%20Kenya.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 12.National AIDS and STI Control Programme (NASCOP) 2007 Kenya AIDS Indicator Survey Final Report. Nairobi, Kenya: NASCOP; 2009. [Accessed September 15, 2013]. Available at: http://nascop.or.ke/library/3d/KAIS_2007_Final.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Maina WK, Kim AA, Rutherford G, et al. Kenya AIDS indicator surveys 2007 and 2012: implications for public health policies for HIV prevention and treatment. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;66(suppl 1):S130–S137. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Muthulingam D, Chin JCS, Hsu L, et al. Disparities in engagement in care and viral suppression among persons with HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63:112–119. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182894555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Cohen SM, Van Handel MM, Branson BM, et al. Vital Signs: HIV prevention through care and treatment-United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60:1618–1623. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Rosen S, Fox MP. Retention in HIV care between testing and treatment in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1001056. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ingle S, May M, Uebel K, et al. Outcomes in patients waiting for anti-retroviral treatment in the Free State Province, South Africa: prospective linkage study. AIDS. 2010;24:2717–2725. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32833fb71f. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Geng EH, Bwaba MB, Muyindike W, et al. Failure to initiate ART, loss to follow-up and mortality among HIV-infected patients during the pre-ART period in Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63:e64–71. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31828af5a6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.World Health Organization (WHO) Consolidated Guidelines on the Use of Antiretroviral Drugs for Treating and Preventing HIV Infection, 2013. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2013. [Accessed October 15, 2013]. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85321/1/9789241505727_eng.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Jain V, Liegler T, Kabami J, et al. Assessment of population-based HIV RNA levels in a rural east African setting using a fingerprick-based blood collection method. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56:598–605. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kranzer K, Lawn SD, Johnson LF, et al. Community viral load and CD4 count distribution among people living with HIV in a South Africa township: implications for treatment as prevention. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63:498–505. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e318293ae48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.O’Brien TR, Blattner WA, Waters D, et al. Serum HIV-1 RNA levels and time to development of AIDS in the Multicenter Hemophilia Cohort Study. JAMA. 1996;276:105–110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Okulicz JF, Marconi VC, Landrum ML, et al. Clinical outcomes of elite controllers, viremic controllers, and long-term nonprogressors in the US department of defense HIV natural history study. J Infect Dis. 2009;200:1714–1723. doi: 10.1086/646609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Madec Y, Boufassa F, Rouzioux C, et al. for the SEROCO Study Group. Undetectable viremia without antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV seroconversion: an uncommon phenomenon? Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:1350–1354. doi: 10.1086/429318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Das M, Raymond HR, Chu P, et al. Measuring the unknown: calculating community viral load among HIV-infected MSM unaware of their HIV status in San Francisco from national HIV behavioral surveillance, 2004–2011 [letter] J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63:e84–6. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31828ed2e4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]