INTRODUCTION: To achieve significant progress in global HIV prevention from 2020 onward, it is essential to ensure that appropriate programmes are being delivered with high quality and sufficient intensity and scale and then taken up by the people who most need and want them in order to have both individual and public health impact. Yet, currently, there is no standard way of assessing this. Available HIV prevention indicators do not provide a logical set of measures that combine to show reduction in HIV incidence and allow for comparison of success (or failure) of HIV prevention programmes and for monitoring progress in meeting global targets. To redress this, attention increasingly has turned to the prospects of devising an HIV prevention cascade, similar to the now-standard HIV treatment cascade; but this has proven to be a controversial enterprise, chiefly due to the complexity of primary prevention. DISCUSSION: We address a number of core issues attendant with devising prevention cascades, including: determining the population of interest and accounting for the variability and fluidity of HIV-related risk within it; the fact that there are multiple HIV prevention methods, and many people are exposed to a package of them, rather than a single method; and choosing the final step (outcome) in the cascade. We propose two unifying models of prevention cascades-one more appropriate for programme managers and monitors and the other for researchers and programme developers-and note their relationship. We also provide some considerations related to cascade data quality and improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The HIV prevention field has been grappling for years with the idea of developing a standardised way to regularly assess progress and to monitor and improve programmes accordingly. The cascade provides the potential to do this, but it is complicated and highly nuanced. We believe the two models proposed here reflect emerging consensus among the range of stakeholders who have been engaging in this discussion and who are dedicated to achieving global HIV prevention goals by ensuring the most appropriate and effective programmes and methods are supported.

Interprofessional care for chronic kidney disease facilitates the delivery of high quality, comprehensive care to a complex, at-risk population. Interprofessional care is resource intensive and requires a value proposition. Joint Commission certification is a voluntary process that improves patient outcomes, provides external validity to hospital administration and enhances visibility to patients and referring providers. This is a single-center, retrospective study describing quality assurance and performance improvement in chronic kidney disease, Joint Commission certification and quality outcomes. A total of 440 patients were included in the analysis. Thirteen quality indicators consisting of clinical and process of care indicators were developed and measured for a period of two years from 2009-2017. Significant improvements or at least persistently high performance were noted for key quality indicators such as blood pressure control (85%), estimation of cardiovascular risk (100%), measurement of hemoglobin A1c (98%), vaccination (93%), referrals for vascular access and transplantation (100%), placement of permanent dialysis access (61%), discussion of advanced directives (94%), online patient education (71%) and completion of office visit documentation (100%). High patient satisfaction scores (94-96%) are consistent with excellent quality of care provided.

Background

Organ transplantation from donors with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to recipients with HIV (HIV D+/R+) presents risks of donor-derived infections. Understanding clinical, immunologic, and virologic characteristics of HIV-positive donors is critical for safety.

Methods

We performed a prospective study of donors with HIV-positive and HIV false-positive (FP) test results within the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in Action studies of HIV D+/R+ transplantation (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602262, NCT03500315, and NCT03734393). We compared clinical characteristics in HIV-positive versus FP donors. We measured CD4 T cells, HIV viral load (VL), drug resistance mutations (DRMs), coreceptor tropism, and serum antiretroviral therapy (ART) detection, using mass spectrometry in HIV-positive donors.

Results

Between March 2016 and March 2020, 92 donors (58 HIV positive, 34 FP), representing 98.9% of all US HOPE donors during this period, donated 177 organs (131 kidneys and 46 livers). Each year the number of donors increased. The prevalence of hepatitis B (16% vs 0%), syphilis (16% vs 0%), and cytomegalovirus (CMV; 91% vs 58%) was higher in HIV-positive versus FP donors; the prevalences of hepatitis C viremia were similar (2% vs 6%). Most HIV-positive donors (71%) had a known HIV diagnosis, of whom 90% were prescribed ART and 68% had a VL <400 copies/mL. The median CD4 T-cell count (interquartile range) was 194/µL (77-331/µL), and the median CD4 T-cell percentage was 27.0% (16.8%-36.1%). Major HIV DRMs were detected in 42%, including nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (33%), integrase strand transfer inhibitors (4%), and multiclass (13%). Serum ART was detected in 46% and matched ART by history.

Conclusion

The use of HIV-positive donor organs is increasing. HIV DRMs are common, yet resistance that would compromise integrase strand transfer inhibitor-based regimens is rare, which is reassuring regarding safety.