Reepalu Anton, Balcha Taye Tolera, Skogmar Sten, Isberg Per-Erik, Medstrand Patrik, Björkman Per
a Clinical Infection Medicine, Department of Translational Medicine , Lund University , Malmö , Sweden.
b Armauer Hansen Research Institute , Addis Ababa , Ethiopia.
Glob Health Action. 2017;10(1):1371961. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2017.1371961.
Early identification of virological failure (VF) limits occurrence and spread of drug-resistant viruses in patients receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART). Viral load (VL) monitoring is therefore recommended, but capacities to comply with this are insufficient in many low-income countries. Clinical algorithms might identify persons at higher likelihood of VF to allocate VL resources.
We aimed to construct a VF algorithm (the Viral Load Testing Criteria; VLTC) and compare its performance to the 2013 WHO treatment failure criteria.
Subjects with VL results available 1 year after ART start (n = 494) were identified from a cohort of ART-naïve adults (n = 812), prospectively recruited and followed 2011-2015 at Ethiopian health centres. VF was defined as VL≥1000 copies/mL. Variables recorded at the time of sampling, with potential association with VF, were used to construct the algorithm based on multivariate logistic regression.
Fifty-seven individuals (12%) had VF, which was independently associated with CD4 count <350 cells/mm, previous ART interruption, and short mid-upper arm circumference (<24cm and <23cm, for men and women, respectively). These variables were included in the VLTC. In derivation, the VLTC identified 52/57 with VF; sensitivity 91%, specificity 43%, positive predictive value (PPV) 17%, negative predictive value (NPV) 97%. In comparison, the WHO criteria identified 38/57 with VF (sensitivity 67%, specificity 74%, PPV 25%, NPV 94%).
The VLTC identified subjects at greater likelihood of VF, with higher sensitivity and NPV than the WHO criteria. If external validation confirms this performance, these criteria could be used to allocate limited VL resources. Due to its limited specificity, it cannot be used to determine treatment failure in the absence of a confirmatory viral load.
早期识别病毒学失败(VF)可限制接受抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)患者中耐药病毒的发生和传播。因此,建议进行病毒载量(VL)监测,但许多低收入国家进行监测的能力不足。临床算法可能有助于识别VF可能性较高的人群,以便合理分配VL检测资源。
我们旨在构建一种VF算法(病毒载量检测标准;VLTC),并将其性能与2013年世界卫生组织治疗失败标准进行比较。
从一组初治成人(n = 812)中识别出ART开始1年后有VL结果的受试者(n = 494),这些受试者于2011年至2015年在埃塞俄比亚卫生中心前瞻性招募并随访。VF定义为VL≥1000拷贝/毫升。在采样时记录的、与VF可能相关的变量用于基于多变量逻辑回归构建算法。
57名个体(12%)出现VF,这与CD4细胞计数<350个/立方毫米、既往ART中断以及中上臂周长较短(男性<24厘米,女性<23厘米)独立相关。这些变量被纳入VLTC。在推导过程中,VLTC识别出57例VF中的52例;灵敏度为91%,特异度为43%,阳性预测值(PPV)为17%,阴性预测值(NPV)为97%。相比之下,世界卫生组织标准识别出57例VF中的38例(灵敏度67%,特异度74%,PPV 25%,NPV 94%)。
VLTC识别出VF可能性更大的受试者,其灵敏度和NPV高于世界卫生组织标准。如果外部验证证实了这一性能,这些标准可用于分配有限的VL检测资源。由于其特异度有限,在没有确诊病毒载量的情况下,不能用于确定治疗失败情况。