Karat Aaron S, Maraba Noriah, Tlali Mpho, Charalambous Salome, Chihota Violet N, Churchyard Gavin J, Fielding Katherine L, Hanifa Yasmeen, Johnson Suzanne, McCarthy Kerrigan M, Kahn Kathleen, Chandramohan Daniel, Grant Alison D
TB Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
The Aurum Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa.
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Jul 3;3(4):e000833. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000833. eCollection 2018.
Verbal autopsy (VA) can be integrated into civil registration and vital statistics systems, but its accuracy in determining HIV-associated causes of death (CoD) is uncertain. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of VA questions in determining HIV status and antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation and compared HIV-associated mortality fractions assigned by different VA interpretation methods.
Using the WHO 2012 instrument with added ART questions, VA was conducted for deaths among adults with known HIV status (356 HIV positive and 103 HIV negative) in South Africa. CoD were assigned using physician-certified VA (PCVA) and computer-coded VA (CCVA) methods and compared with documented HIV status.
The sensitivity of VA questions in detecting HIV status and ART initiation was 84.3% (95% CI 80 to 88) and 91.0% (95% CI 86 to 95); 283/356 (79.5%) HIV-positive individuals were assigned HIV-associated CoD by PCVA, 166 (46.6%) by InterVA-4.03, 201 (56.5%) by InterVA-5, and 80 (22.5%) and 289 (81.2%) by SmartVA-Analyze V.1.1.1 and V.1.2.1. Agreement between PCVA and older CCVA methods was poor (chance-corrected concordance [CCC] <0; cause-specific mortality fraction [CSMF] accuracy ≤56%) but better between PCVA and updated methods (CCC 0.21-0.75; CSMF accuracy 65%-98%). All methods were specific (specificity 87% to 96%) in assigning HIV-associated CoD.
All CCVA interpretation methods underestimated the HIV-associated mortality fraction compared with PCVA; InterVA-5 and SmartVA-Analyze V.1.2.1 performed better than earlier versions. Changes to VA methods and classification systems are needed to track progress towards targets for reducing HIV-associated mortality.
口头尸检(VA)可纳入民事登记和人口动态统计系统,但其在确定与艾滋病毒相关的死亡原因(CoD)方面的准确性尚不确定。我们评估了VA问题在确定艾滋病毒状况和抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)启动方面的敏感性和特异性,并比较了不同VA解释方法所确定的与艾滋病毒相关的死亡率。
使用添加了ART问题的2012年世卫组织工具,对南非已知艾滋病毒状况的成年人(356例艾滋病毒阳性和103例艾滋病毒阴性)的死亡进行了VA调查。使用医生认证的VA(PCVA)和计算机编码的VA(CCVA)方法确定CoD,并与记录的艾滋病毒状况进行比较。
VA问题在检测艾滋病毒状况和ART启动方面的敏感性分别为84.3%(95%CI 80至88)和91.0%(95%CI 86至95);283/356(79.5%)的艾滋病毒阳性个体被PCVA确定为与艾滋病毒相关的CoD,InterVA-4.03确定为166例(46.6%),InterVA-5确定为201例(56.5%),SmartVA-Analyze V.1.1.1和V.1.2.1分别确定为80例(22.5%)和289例(81.2%)。PCVA与较旧的CCVA方法之间的一致性较差(机会校正一致性[CCC]<0;特定病因死亡率[CSMF]准确性≤56%),但PCVA与更新方法之间的一致性较好(CCC 0.21 - 0.75;CSMF准确性65% - 98%)。所有方法在确定与艾滋病毒相关的CoD方面均具有特异性(特异性87%至96%)。
与PCVA相比,所有CCVA解释方法均低估了与艾滋病毒相关的死亡率;InterVA-5和SmartVA-Analyze V.1.2.1的表现优于早期版本。需要对VA方法和分类系统进行改进,以跟踪在降低与艾滋病毒相关死亡率目标方面的进展。