Comparison of different adherence cutoff values for the prediction of detectable plasma viral load.

<p>¹pVL, plasma viral load.</p><p>²Shown are % (proportions) of patients with adherence higher than or equal to the respective adherence threshold.</p><p>Comparison of different adherence cutoff values for the prediction of detectable plasma viral load.</p

Factors associated with suboptimal adherence to ART.

<p>¹Data are % (proportion) of patients or median value (interquartile range).</p><p>Factors associated with suboptimal adherence to ART.</p

Characteristics of the patients.

<p>¹Data are medians (interquartile ranges) for continuous variables and % (proportions) for discrete variables.</p><p>²Triple NRTI (n = 9), PI+NNRTI-based (n = 5).</p><p>Characteristics of the patients.</p

Effects of adherence on virological suppression among patients with high versus low or intermediate CD4+ T cell counts.

<p>¹pVL, plasma viral load.</p><p>²Patient numbers are shown.</p><p>Effects of adherence on virological suppression among patients with high versus low or intermediate CD4+ T cell counts.</p

Results of the Cox regression model showing predictors of attrition from HIV care among HIV infected adults on cART.

<p>^a at enrolment in HIV care.</p><p>^b at start cART.</p><p>^c according to the revised World Health Organization clinical staging of HIV/AIDS for adults and adolescents, 2005 [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0130649#pone.0130649.ref051" target="_blank">51</a>].</p><p>d4T, Stavudine; AZT, Zidovudine; TDF, Tenofovir.</p><p>HR, hazard ratio.</p><p>* p-value < 0.2.</p><p>^‡ p-value < 0.05.</p><p>1 = reference category.</p><p>Results of the Cox regression model showing predictors of attrition from HIV care among HIV infected adults on cART.</p

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for number of urinary tract infections prevented during 12 months (cranberry prophylaxis vs TMP-SMX prophylaxis).

<p>Abbreviations: TMP-SMX, trimethoprim-sulfametoxazole; UTI, Urinary Tract Infection.</p

Flowchart depicting the random selection of health care facilities and patients included in the study.

<p>Flowchart depicting the random selection of health care facilities and patients included in the study.</p

Patients’ socio-demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics (n = 836).

<p>* values are n (%) unless otherwise indicated.</p><p>^a at enrolment in HIV care.</p><p>^b at start cART.</p><p>^c at study entry or at last known clinic/pharmacy refill visit date.</p><p>^d according to the revised World Health Organization clinical staging of HIV/AIDS for adults and adolescents, 2005 [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0130649#pone.0130649.ref051" target="_blank">51</a>].</p><p>TDF, Tenofovir; AZT, Zidovudine; d4T, Stavudine.</p><p>SD, standard deviation; IQR, inter-quartile range.</p><p>Patients’ socio-demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics (n = 836).</p

Flow of participants through the trial.

<p>The lack of efficacy was determined by the patients. Abbreviations: TMP-SMX, trimethoprim-sulfametoxazole.</p

Cost-effectiveness plane for number of urinary tract infections prevented during 12 months (cranberry prophylaxis vs TMP-SMX prophylaxis).

<p>The black dot indicates the point estimate of the ICER (1.6 prevented UTIs less and €247 more costs in the cranberry group as compared to the TMP-SMX group) and the grey dots indicate the bootstrapped cost-effect pairs to reflect the uncertainty around the ICER. Abbreviations: ICER, Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio; TMP-SMX, trimethoprim-sulfametoxazole; UTI, Urinary Tract Infection.</p