Brooke Nichols

Dr. Brooke Nichols

Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02118, USA
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
10 December 2013 in The Lancet Global Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
TWTimothy M. Wolock
Timothy M. Wolock
NMNicolas A Menzies
Nicolas A Menzies
JSJohn Stover
John Stover
VCValentina Cambiano
Valentina Cambiano
LCLeonid Chindelevitch
Leonid Chindelevitch
THTimothy B Hallett
Timothy B Hallett
SummaryBackgroundNew WHO guidelines recommend initiation of antiretroviral therapy for HIV-positive adults with CD4 counts of 500 cells per μL or less, a higher threshold than was previously recommended. Country decision makers have to decide whether to further expand eligibility for antiretroviral therapy accordingly. We aimed to assess the potential health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of various eligibility criteria for adult antiretroviral therapy and expanded treatment coverage.MethodsWe used several independent mathematical models in four settings—South Africa (generalised epidemic, moderate antiretroviral therapy coverage), Zambia (generalised epidemic, high antiretroviral therapy coverage), India (concentrated epidemic, moderate antiretroviral therapy coverage), and Vietnam (concentrated epidemic, low antiretroviral therapy coverage)—to assess the potential health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of various eligibility criteria for adult antiretroviral therapy under scenarios of existing and expanded treatment coverage, with results projected over 20 years. Analyses assessed the extension of eligibility to include individuals with CD4 counts of 500 cells per μL or less, or all HIV-positive adults, compared with the previous (2010) recommendation of initiation with CD4 counts of 350 cells per μL or less. We assessed costs from a health-system perspective, and calculated the incremental cost (in US$) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted to compare competing strategies. Strategies were regarded very cost effective if the cost per DALY averted was less than the country's 2012 per-head gross domestic product (GDP; South Africa: $8040; Zambia: $1425; India: $1489; Vietnam: $1407) and cost effective if the cost per DALY averted was less than three times the per-head GDP.FindingsIn South Africa, the cost per DALY averted of extending eligibility for antiretroviral therapy to adult patients with CD4 counts of 500 cells per μL or less ranged from $237 to $1691 per DALY averted compared with 2010 guidelines. In Zambia, expansion of eligibility to adults with a CD4 count threshold of 500 cells per μL ranged from improving health outcomes while reducing costs (ie, dominating the previous guidelines) to $749 per DALY averted. In both countries results were similar for expansion of eligibility to all HIV-positive adults, and when substantially expanded treatment coverage was assumed. Expansion of treatment coverage in the general population was also cost effective. In India, the cost for extending eligibility to all HIV-positive adults ranged from $131 to $241 per DALY averted, and in Vietnam extending eligibility to patients with CD4 counts of 500 cells per μL or less cost $290 per DALY averted. In concentrated epidemics, expanded access for key populations was also cost effective.InterpretationOur estimates suggest that earlier eligibility for antiretroviral therapy is very cost effective in low-income and middle-income settings, although these estimates should be revisited when more data become available. Scaling up antiretroviral therapy through earlier eligibility and expanded coverage should be considered alongside other high-priority health interventions competing for health budgets.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO

21 April 2021 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KSKarla Therese L. Sy
Karla Therese L. Sy
LWLaura F. White
Laura F. White
BNBrooke Nichols
Brooke Nichols
The basic reproductive number (R0) is a function of contact rates among individuals, transmission probability, and duration of infectiousness. We sought to determine the association between population density and R0 of SARS-CoV-2 across U.S. counties. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using linear mixed models with random intercept and fixed slopes to assess the association of population density and R0, and controlled for state-level effects using random intercepts. We also assessed whether the association was differential across county-level main mode of transportation percentage as a proxy for transportation accessibility, and adjusted for median household income. The median R0 among the United States counties was 1.66 (IQR: 1.35–2.11). A population density threshold of 22 people/km2 was needed to sustain an outbreak. Counties with greater population density have greater rates of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, likely due to increased contact rates in areas with greater density. An increase in one unit of log population density increased R0 by 0.16 (95% CI: 0.13 to 0.19). This association remained when adjusted for main mode of transportation and household income. The effect of population density on R0 was not modified by transportation mode. Our findings suggest that dense areas increase contact rates necessary for disease transmission. SARS-CoV-2 R0 estimates need to consider this geographic variability for proper planning and resource allocation, particularly as epidemics newly emerge and old outbreaks resurge.

28 November 2020 in Journal of the International AIDS Society
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LLLawrence Long
Lawrence Long
SKSalome Kuchukhidze
Salome Kuchukhidze
SPSophie Pascoe
Sophie Pascoe
BNBrooke Nichols
Brooke Nichols
MFMatthew P Fox
Matthew P Fox
SRSydney Rosen
Sydney Rosen
Introduction: Differentiated service delivery (DSD) models for antiretroviral treatment (ART) for HIV are being scaled up in the expectation that they will better meet the needs of patients, improve the quality and efficiency of treatment delivery and reduce costs while maintaining at least equivalent clinical outcomes. We reviewed the recent literature on DSD models to describe what is known about clinical outcomes.Methods: We conducted a rapid systematic review of peer‐reviewed publications in PubMed, Embase and the Web of Science and major international conference abstracts that reported outcomes of DSD models for the provision of ART in sub‐Saharan Africa from January 1, 2016 to September 12, 2019. Sources reporting standard clinical HIV treatment metrics, primarily retention in care and viral load suppression, were reviewed and categorized by DSD model and source quality assessed.Results and discussion: Twenty‐nine papers and abstracts describing 37 DSD models and reporting 52 discrete outcomes met search inclusion criteria. Of the 37 models, 7 (19%) were facility‐based individual models, 12 (32%) out‐of‐facility‐based individual models, 5 (14%) client‐led groups and 13 (35%) healthcare worker‐led groups. Retention was reported for 29 (78%) of the models and viral suppression for 22 (59%). Where a comparison with conventional care was provided, retention in most DSD models was within 5% of that for conventional care; where no comparison was provided, retention generally exceeded 80% (range 47% to 100%). For viral suppression, all those with a comparison to conventional care reported a small increase in suppression in the DSD model; reported suppression exceeded 90% (range 77% to 98%) in 11/21 models. Analysis was limited by the extensive heterogeneity of study designs, outcomes, models and populations. Most sources did not provide comparisons with conventional care, and metrics for assessing outcomes varied widely and were in many cases poorly defined.Conclusions: Existing evidence on the clinical outcomes of DSD models for HIV treatment in sub‐Saharan Africa is limited in both quantity and quality but suggests that retention in care and viral suppression are roughly equivalent to those in conventional models of care.

2 December 2015 in Nature
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
APAndrew Phillips
Andrew Phillips
ASAmir Shroufi
Amir Shroufi
LVLara Vojnov
Lara Vojnov
JCJennifer Cohn
Jennifer Cohn
TRTeri Roberts
Teri Roberts
PRPaul Revill
Paul Revill
There are inefficiencies in current approaches to monitoring patients on antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa. Patients typically attend clinics every 1 to 3 months for clinical assessment. The clinic costs are comparable with the costs of the drugs themselves and CD4 counts are measured every 6 months, but patients are rarely switched to second-line therapies. To ensure sustainability of treatment programmes, a transition to more cost-effective delivery of antiretroviral therapy is needed. In contrast to the CD4 count, measurement of the level of HIV RNA in plasma (the viral load) provides a direct measure of the current treatment effect. Viral-load-informed differentiated care is a means of tailoring care so that those with suppressed viral load visit the clinic less frequently and attention is focussed on those with unsuppressed viral load to promote adherence and timely switching to a second-line regimen. The most feasible approach to measuring viral load in many countries is to collect dried blood spot samples for testing in regional laboratories; however, there have been concerns over the sensitivity and specificity of this approach to define treatment failure and the delay in returning results to the clinic. We use modelling to synthesize evidence and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of viral-load-informed differentiated care, accounting for limitations of dried blood sample testing. We find that viral-load-informed differentiated care using dried blood sample testing is cost-effective and is a recommended strategy for patient monitoring, although further empirical evidence as the approach is rolled out would be of value. We also explore the potential benefits of point-of-care viral load tests that may become available in the future. This article has not been written or reviewed by Nature editors. Nature accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided.

1 December 2016 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BNBrooke Nichols
Brooke Nichols
CBCharles A B Boucher
Charles A B Boucher
MVMarc van der Valk
Marc van der Valk
BRBart Rijnders
Bart Rijnders
DVDavid A M C van de Vijver
David A M C van de Vijver

1 February 2020 in The Lancet Global Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
KDKathryn Dovel
Kathryn Dovel
FSFrackson Shaba
Frackson Shaba
OOO Agatha Offorjebe
O Agatha Offorjebe
KBKelvin Balakasi
Kelvin Balakasi
MNMike Nyirenda
Mike Nyirenda
RHRisa M Hoffman
Risa M Hoffman
HIV self-testing increases testing uptake in sub-Saharan Africa but scale-up is challenging because of resource constraints. We evaluated an HIV self-testing intervention integrated into high-burden outpatient departments in Malawi. In this cluster-randomised trial, we recruited participants aged 15 years or older from 15 outpatient departments at high-burden health facilities (including health centres, mission hospitals, and district hospitals) in central and southern Malawi. The trial was clustered at the health facility level. We used constrained randomisation to allocate each cluster (1:1:1) to one of the following groups: standard provider-initiated testing and counselling with no intervention (provider offered during consultations), optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling (with additional provider training and morning HIV testing), and facility-based HIV self-testing (Oraquick HIV self-test, group demonstration and distribution, and private spaces for interpretation and counselling). The primary outcome was the proportion of outpatients tested for HIV on the day of enrolment, measured through exit surveys with a sample of outpatients. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03271307, and Pan African Clinical Trials, PACTR201711002697316. Between Sept 12, 2017, and Feb 23, 2018, 5885 outpatients completed an exit survey-2097 in the HIV self-testing group, 1951 in the standard provider-initiated testing and counselling group, and 1837 in the optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling group. 1063 (51%) of 2097 patients in the HIV self-testing group had HIV testing on the same day as enrolment, compared with 248 (13%) of 1951 in the standard provider-initiated testing and counselling group and 261 (14%) of 1837 in the optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling group. The odds of same-day HIV testing were significantly higher in the facility-based HIV self-testing group compared with either standard provider-initiated testing and counselling (adjusted odds ratio 8·52, 95% CI 3·98-18·24) or optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling (6·29, 2·96-13·38). Around 4% of those tested in the standard provider-initiated testing and counselling and optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling groups felt coerced to test, and around 1% felt coerced to share test results. No coercion was reported in the facility-based HIV self-testing group. Facility-based HIV self-testing increased HIV testing among outpatients in Malawi, with a minimal risk of adverse events. Facility-based HIV self-testing should be considered for scale-up in settings with a high unmet need for HIV testing. United States Agency for International Development.