Overall, 28% of WLWH were lost across the HIV care cascade, with significant differences by stage, subpopulation, and social inequities. Targeted interventions are needed to improve women's retention across the cascade.

Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are global pandemics that affect 170 million and 35 million individuals, respectively. Up to 45% of individuals infected with HCV clear their infections spontaneously – correlating to factors like aboriginal descent and some host specific immune factors. HIV, however, establishes true latency in infected cells and cannot be cured. In the setting of longterm non-progressors (LTNPs) of HIV, a state of immune preservation and low circulating viral load is established. Regarding HIV/HCV co-infection, little is known about the relationship between spontaneous clearance of HCV infection and long-term control of HIV infection without medical intervention. We describe a case of a HIV-infected female defined as a LTNP in whom spontaneous clearance of HCV was documented on multiple occasions. Similar cases should be documented and identified in an effort to develop novel hypotheses about the natural control of these infections and inform research on immune-based interventions to control them.

BACKGROUND: The HIV care cascade is an indicators-framework used to assess achievement of HIV clinical targets including HIV diagnosis, HIV care initiation and retention, initiation of antiretroviral therapy, and attainment of viral suppression for people living with HIV. METHODS: The HIV Care Cascade Research Development Team at the CIHR Canadian HIV Trials Network Clinical Care and Management Core hosted a two-day virtual workshop to present HIV care cascade data collected nationally from local and provincial clinical settings and national cohort studies. The article summarizes the workshop presentations including the indicators used and available findings and presents the discussed challenges and recommendations. RESULTS: Identified challenges included (1) inconsistent HIV care cascade indicator definitions, (2) variability between the use of nested UNAIDS’s targets and HIV care cascade indicators, (3) variable analytic approaches based on differing data sources, (4) reporting difficulties in some regions due to a lack of integration across data platforms, (5) lack of robust data on the first stage of the care cascade at the sub-national level, and (6) inability to integrate key socio-demographic data to estimate population-specific care cascade shortfalls. CONCLUSION: There were four recommendations: standardization of HIV care cascade indicators and analyses, additional funding for HIV care cascade data collection, database maintenance, and analyses at all levels, qualitative interviews and case studies characterizing the stories behind the care cascade findings, and employing targeted positive-action programs to increase engagement of key populations in each HIV care cascade stage.