OBJECTIVE: To analyse the early loss of patients to antiretroviral therapy (ART) programmes in resource-limited settings. METHODS: Using data on 5491 adult patients starting ART (median age 35 years, 46% female) in 15 treatment programmes in Africa, Asia and South America with (3) 12 months of follow-up, we investigated risk factors for no follow-up after treatment initiation, and loss to follow-up or death in the first 6 months. FINDINGS: Overall, 211 patients (3.8%) had no follow-up, 880 (16.0%) were lost to follow-up and 141 (2.6%) were known to have died in the first 6 months. The probability of no follow-up was higher in 2003-2004 than in 2000 or earlier (odds ratio, OR: 5.06; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.28-20.0), as was loss to follow-up (hazard ratio, HR: 7.62; 95% CI: 4.55-12.8) but not recorded death (HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.44-2.36). Compared with a baseline CD4-cell count (3) 50 cells/microl, a count < 25 cells/microl was associated with a higher probability of no follow-up (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.43-4.33), loss to follow-up (HR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.23-1.77) and death (HR: 3.34; 95% CI: 2.10-5.30). Compared to free treatment, fee-for-service programmes were associated with a higher probability of no follow-up (OR: 3.71; 95% CI: 0.97-16.05) and higher mortality (HR: 4.64; 95% CI: 1.11-19.41). CONCLUSION: Early patient losses were increasingly common when programmes were scaled up and were associated with a fee for service and advanced immunodeficiency at baseline. Measures to maximize ART programme retention are required in resource-poor countries.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of collecting, storing, retrieving and analysing necessary information to fulfil a preliminary set of quality indicators (QIs) that have been proposed by an international task force in a large multinational clinical practice database of patients with RA. METHODS: Data from all 12 487 patients with 46 005 visits in the Measurement of Efficacy of Treatment in the Era of Outcome in Rheumatology database from January 2008 until January 2012 were analysed to test the feasibility of collecting information on 10 QIs: time to diagnosis; frequency of visits; assessment of autoantibodies and radiographs, disease activity and function; disease remission, low disease activity, normal function; time to first DMARD and type of first DMARD. For each QI, two aspects were assessed: information availability and target achievement. RESULTS: Information was available for < 50% of patients regarding the following QIs: time to diagnosis, assessment of ACPAs or radiographs, time to first DMARD and type of first DMARD. Information was available for function assessment in 49% of visits and 67% of patients and for disease activity assessment in 85% of visits and 86% of patients. Information relevant to the QI frequency of visits was available for all patients. Relevant information to calculate the proportion of patients who achieved a defined target could be obtained for all QIs. CONCLUSION: Collecting storing, retrieving and analysing the core data necessary to meaningfully assess quality of care is feasible in a multinational, practice-based electronic database.