Table 5:
Percentage with viral load monitoring before and after national Treat-All policy adoption by country and sex.
| Lesotho | Malawi | Mozambique | South Africa | Zambia | Zimbabwe | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Female patients | 861 (100%) | 6,493 (100%) | 4,921 (100%) | 10,743 (100%) | 69,687 (100%) | 3,865 (100%) |
| before Treat-All | 416 (48%) | 4,096 (63%) | 2,412 (49%) | 5,768 (54%) | 36,618 (53%) | 2,244 (58%) |
| after Treat-All | 445 (52%) | 2,397 (37%) | 2,509 (51%) | 4,975 (46%) | 33,069 (47%) | 1,621 (42%) |
| Risk difference at threshold* | −0.2 | −4.4 | 3.3 | 7.1 | 0.6 | 1.4 |
| (95% CI) | (−5.8, 5.3) | (−10.3, 1.5) | (−0.7, 7.3) | (1.1, 13.0) | (−1.3, 2.5) | (−2.9, 5.6) |
| p-value | 0.944 | 0.142 | 0.106 | 0.020 | 0.552 | 0.525 |
| IK bandwidth (days) | 402 | 131 | 135 | 147 | 143 | 373 |
| patients within bandwidth | 498 | 1,810 | 968 | 2,778 | 17,043 | 2,182 |
|
| ||||||
| Male patients | 448 (100%) | 3,422 (100%) | 2,374 (100%) | 4,873 (100%) | 39,849 (100%) | 2,110 (100%) |
| before Treat-All | 210 (47%) | 1,975 (58%) | 1,009 (42%) | 2,548 (52%) | 20,333 (51%) | 1,105 (52%) |
| after Treat-All | 238 (53%) | 1,447 (42%) | 1,365 (58%) | 2,325 (48%) | 19,516 (49%) | 1,005 (48%) |
| Risk difference at threshold* | NA | 3.3 | 0.7 | −4.2 | 1.7 | 0.1 |
| (95% CI) | NA | (−5.5, 12.1) | (−2.2, 3.7) | (−9.8, 1.4) | (−0.8, 4.1) | (−6.4, 6.6) |
| p-value | NA | 0.464 | 0.627 | 0.144 | 0.178 | 0.967 |
| IK bandwidth (days) | NA | 117 | 208 | 356 | 181 | 224 |
| patients within bandwidth | NA | 941 | 803 | 3,187 | 12,218 | 808 |
Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.
*
Risk differences at the national Treat-All policy adoption threshold are from regression discontinuity analyses using Imbens-Kalyanaraman (IK) bandwidths derived from all data available within two years before and after the threshold to estimate the difference in local linear predictions. The bandwidth defines the area on each side of the threshold where the relationship between antiretroviral therapy (ART) start and viral load monitoring is assumed to be linear in local linear regression models.