There is an increasing burden of hypertension (HTN) across sub-Saharan Africa where HIV prevalence is the highest in the world, but current care models are inadequate to address the dual epidemics. HIV treatment infrastructure could be leveraged for the care of other chronic diseases, including HTN. However, little data exist on the effectiveness of integrated HIV and chronic disease care delivery systems on blood pressure control over time. Population screening for HIV and HTN, among other diseases, was conducted in ten communities in rural Uganda as part of the SEARCH study (NCT01864603). Individuals with either HIV, HTN, or both were referred to an integrated chronic disease clinic. Based on Uganda treatment guidelines, follow-up visits were scheduled every 4 weeks when blood pressure was uncontrolled, and either every 3 months, or in the case of drug stock-outs more frequently, when blood pressure was controlled. We describe demographic and clinical variables among all patients and used multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression to evaluate predictors of HTN control. Following population screening (2013–2014) of 34,704 adults age ≥ 18 years, 4554 individuals with HTN alone or both HIV and HTN were referred to an integrated chronic disease clinic. Within 1 year 2038 participants with HTN linked to care and contributed 15,653 follow-up visits over 3 years. HTN was controlled at 15% of baseline visits and at 46% (95% CI: 44–48%) of post-baseline follow-up visits. Scheduled visit interval more frequent than clinical indication among patients with controlled HTN was associated with lower HTN control at the subsequent visit (aOR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.79–0.99). Hypertension control at follow-up visits was higher among HIV-infected patients than uninfected patients to have controlled blood pressure at follow-up visits (48% vs 46%; aOR 1.28; 95% CI 0.95–1.71). Improved HTN control was achieved in an integrated HIV and chronic care model. Similar to HIV care, visit frequency determined by drug supply chain rather than clinical indication is associated with worse HTN control. The SEARCH Trial was prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01864603.

Objective: To compare the incidence of dyslipidemia in people with HIV receiving integrase inhibitors (INSTI) versus boosted protease inhibitors (PI/b) and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) within RESPOND consortium of prospective cohorts. Methods: Participants were eligible if they were at least 18 years, without dyslipidemia and initiated or switched to a three-drug antiretroviral therapy (ART)-regimen consisting of either INSTI, NNRTI, or PI/b for the first time, between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2018. Dyslipidemia was defined as random total cholesterol more than 240 mg/dl, HDL less than 35 mg/dl, triglyceride more than 200 mg/dl, or initiation of lipid-lowering therapy. Poisson regression was used to determine the adjusted incidence rate ratios. Follow-up was censored after 3 years or upon ART-regimen discontinuation or last lipid measurement or 31 December 2019, whichever occurred first. Results: Overall, 4577 people with HIV were eligible (INSTI = 66.9%, PI/b = 12.5%, and NNRTI = 20.6%), 1938 (42.3%) of whom were ART-naive. During 1.7 (interquartile range, 0.6–3.0) median years of follow-up, 1460 participants developed dyslipidemia [incidence rate: 191.6 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval (CI) 182.0–201.7]. Participants taking INSTI had a lower incidence of dyslipidemia compared with those on PI/b (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.71; CI 0.59–0.85), but higher rate compared with those on NNRTI (1.35; CI 1.15–1.58). Compared with dolutegravir, the incidence of dyslipidemia was higher with elvitegravir/cobicistat (1.20; CI 1.00–1.43) and raltegravir (1.24; CI 1.02–1.51), but lower with rilpivirine (0.77; CI 0.63–0.94). Conclusion: In this large consortium of heterogeneous cohorts, dyslipidemia was less common with INSTI than with PI/b. Compared with dolutegravir, dyslipidemia was more common with elvitegravir/cobicistat and raltegravir, but less common with rilpivirine.

Objective: To compare the incidence of hypertension in people living with HIV receiving integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)‐based antiretroviral therapy (ART) versus non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) or boosted protease inhibitors (PIs) in the RESPOND consortium of HIV cohorts.Methods: Eligible people with HIV were aged ≥18 years who initiated a new three‐drug ART regimen for the first time (baseline), did not have hypertension, and had at least two follow‐up blood pressure (BP) measurements. Hypertension was defined as two consecutive systolic BP measurements ≥140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg or initiation of antihypertensives. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to determine adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of hypertension, overall and in those who were ART naïve or experienced at baseline.Results: Overall, 4606 people living with HIV were eligible (INSTIs 3164, NNRTIs 807, PIs 635). The median baseline systolic BP, diastolic BP, and age were 120 (interquartile range [IQR] 113–130) mmHg, 78 (70–82) mmHg, and 43 (34–50) years, respectively. Over 8380.4 person‐years (median follow‐up 1.5 [IQR 1.0–2.7] years), 1058 (23.0%) participants developed hypertension (incidence rate 126.2/1000 person‐years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 118.9–134.1). Participants receiving INSTIs had a higher incidence of hypertension than those receiving NNRTIs (aIRR 1.76; 95% CI 1.47–2.11), whereas the incidence was no different in those receiving PIs (aIRR 1.07; 95% CI 0.89–1.29). The results were similar when the analysis was stratified by ART status at baseline.Conclusion: Although unmeasured confounding and channelling bias cannot be excluded, INSTIs were associated with a higher incidence of hypertension than were NNRTIs, but rates were similar to those of PIs overall, in ART‐naïve and ART‐experienced participants within RESPOND.

Background: Throughout the last decade, tuberculosis (TB) treatment success has not surpassed 90%, the global target. The impact of mobile health interventions (MHIs) on TB treatment outcomes is unknown, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). MHIs, including interactive voice response technology (IVRT), may enhance adherence and retention in the care of patients with tuberculosis and improve TB treatment outcomes. This study seeks to determine the impact of IVRT-based MHI on TB treatment success (treatment completion and cure rates) in patients with TB receiving care at five public health facilities in Uganda. Methods: We used a theory-based and human-centered design (HCD) to adapt an already piloted software to design “Call for life-TB” (CFL-TB), an MHI that utilizes IVRT to deliver adherence and appointment reminders and allows remote symptom reporting. This open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT), with nested qualitative and economic evaluation studies, will determine the impact of CFL-TB on TB treatment success in patients with drug-susceptible TB in Uganda. Participants (n = 274) at the five study sites will be randomized (1:1 ratio) to either control (standard of care) or intervention (adherence and appointment reminders, and health tips) arms. Multivariable regression models will be used to compare treatment success, adherence to treatment and clinic appointments, and treatment completion at 6 months post-enrolment. Additionally, we will determine the cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and perceptions of stakeholders. The study received national ethical approval and was conducted in accordance with the international ethical guidelines. Discussion: This randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate interactive voice response technology in the context of resource-limited settings with a high burden of TB and high illiteracy rates. The software to be evaluated was developed using HCD and the intervention was based on the IMB model. The software is tailored to the local context and is interoperable with the MHI ecosystem. The HCD approach ensures higher usability of the MHI by integrating human factors in the prototype development. This research will contribute towards the understanding of the implementation and impact of the MHI on TB treatment outcomes and the health system, especially in LMICs. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04709159. Registered on January 14, 2021.

Background: Following the successful scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART), the focus is now on ensuring good quality of life (QoL) and sustained viral suppression in people living with HIV. The access to mobile technology in the most burdened countries is increasing rapidly, and therefore, mobile health (mHealth) technologies could be leveraged to improve QoL in people living with HIV. However, data on the impact of mHealth tools on the QoL in people living with HIV are limited to the evaluation of SMS text messaging; these are infeasible in high-illiteracy settings. Objective: The primary and secondary outcomes were to determine the impact of interactive voice response (IVR) technology on Medical Outcomes Study HIV QoL scores and viral suppression at 12 months, respectively. Methods: Within the Call for Life study, ART-experienced and ART-naïve people living with HIV commencing ART were randomized (1:1 ratio) to the control (no IVR support) or intervention arm (daily adherence and pre-appointment reminders, health information tips, and option to report symptoms). The software evaluated was Call for Life Uganda, an IVR technology that is based on the Mobile Technology for Community Health open-source software. Eligibility criteria for participation included access to a phone, fluency in local languages, and provision of consent. The differences in differences (DIDs) were computed, adjusting for baseline HIV RNA and CD4. Results: Overall, 600 participants (413 female, 68.8%) were enrolled and followed-up for 12 months. In the intervention arm of 300 participants, 298 (99.3%) opted for IVR and 2 (0.7%) chose SMS text messaging as the mode of receiving reminders and health tips. At 12 months, there was no overall difference in the QoL between the intervention and control arms (DID=0.0; P=.99) or HIV RNA (DID=0.01; P=.94). At 12 months, 124 of the 256 (48.4%) active participants had picked up at least 50% of the calls. In the active intervention participants, high users (received >75% of reminders) had overall higher QoL compared to low users (received <25% of reminders) (92.2 versus 87.8, P=.02). Similarly, high users also had higher QoL scores in the mental health domain (93.1 versus 86.8, P=.008) and better appointment keeping. Similarly, participants with moderate use (51%-75%) had better viral suppression at 12 months (80/94, 85% versus 11/19, 58%, P=.006). Conclusions: Overall, there was high uptake and acceptability of the IVR tool. While we found no overall difference in the QoL and viral suppression between study arms, people living with HIV with higher usage of the tool showed greater improvements in QoL, viral suppression, and appointment keeping. With the declining resources available to HIV programs and the increasing number of people living with HIV accessing ART, IVR technology could be used to support patient care. The tool may be helpful in situations where physical consultations are infeasible, including the current COVID epidemic. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02953080; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02953080