Office of Infectious Disease, Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA 98195, USA.
Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Viruses. 2020 Jan 26;12(2):142. doi: 10.3390/v12020142.
Molecular cluster detection can be used to interrupt HIV transmission but is dependent on identifying clusters where transmission is likely. We characterized molecular cluster detection in Washington State, evaluated the current cluster investigation criteria, and developed a criterion using machine learning. The population living with HIV (PLWH) in Washington State, those with an analyzable genotype sequences, and those in clusters were described across demographic characteristics from 2015 to2018. The relationship between 3- and 12-month cluster growth and demographic, clinical, and temporal predictors were described, and a random forest model was fit using data from 2016 to 2017. The ability of this model to identify clusters with future transmission was compared to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Washington state criteria in 2018. The population with a genotype was similar to all PLWH, but people in a cluster were disproportionately white, male, and men who have sex with men. The clusters selected for investigation by the random forest model grew on average 2.3 cases (95% CI 1.1-1.4) in 3 months, which was not significantly larger than the CDC criteria (2.0 cases, 95% CI 0.5-3.4). Disparities in the cases analyzed suggest that molecular cluster detection may not benefit all populations. Jurisdictions should use auxiliary data sources for prediction or continue using established investigation criteria.
分子簇检测可用于阻断 HIV 传播,但这依赖于识别可能发生传播的簇。我们对华盛顿州的分子簇检测进行了特征描述,评估了当前的簇调查标准,并使用机器学习开发了一个标准。描述了 2015 年至 2018 年间华盛顿州的 HIV 感染者(PLWH)、可分析基因型序列的感染者以及处于簇中的感染者的人口统计学特征。描述了 3 个月和 12 个月簇增长与人口统计学、临床和时间预测因子之间的关系,并使用 2016 年至 2017 年的数据拟合了随机森林模型。将该模型识别未来传播簇的能力与 2018 年疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)和华盛顿州标准进行了比较。基因型人群与所有 PLWH 相似,但处于簇中的人主要是白人、男性和男男性行为者。随机森林模型选择用于调查的簇平均在 3 个月内增加了 2.3 例(95%CI 1.1-1.4),这与 CDC 标准(2.0 例,95%CI 0.5-3.4)没有显著差异。分析案例中的差异表明,分子簇检测可能无法使所有人群受益。辖区应使用辅助数据源进行预测,或继续使用既定的调查标准。