OBJECTIVE: We aimed to retrieve the vital status of patients lost to follow-up (LFU), with no further visits for at least 12 months, for the 34,835 patients in the Agence Nationale de Recherche sur le SIDA CO4 French Hospital Database on HIV (ANRS CO4 FHDH) seen in 1999 and to examine how loss to follow-up might influence estimates of survival and the impact of delayed access to care (DAC) on survival. METHODS: The status of LFU patients was established by using the mid-2006 update of the FHDH in which their status 12 months after loss to follow-up was added when available and by matching with the Mortalité 2000-Epidemiological Centre for Medical Causes of Death (CépiDc) database, which included HIV-infected patients dying in 2000. We compared Kaplan-Meier and hazard ratio (HR) estimates before and after correction for the status of LFU patients. RESULTS: In the mid-2006 updated FHDH, of the patients seen in 1999, 7.5% were LFU: of these, 2.1% later returned for follow-up, with a median time without follow-up in an FHDH centre of 3.5 years, and 5.4% had no further FHDH visits whatsoever, of whom 29.8% died according to Mortalité 2000-CépiDc. After correction, the estimated 1-year survival rates following enrolment in 1999 differed between the original and updated analyses (97.1 vs. 95.9%, respectively; P=0.017); the estimates of mortality HRs associated with DAC did not differ during the first 6 months, but did differ for the 6-18-month period. CONCLUSIONS: Among LFU patients, 28.1% returned to follow-up after several years and at least 21.4% died, which led to a slight overestimation of both survival and the impact of DAC on survival.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to retrieve the vital status of patients lost to follow-up (LFU), with no further visits for at least 12 months, for the 34,835 patients in the Agence Nationale de Recherche sur le SIDA CO4 French Hospital Database on HIV (ANRS CO4 FHDH) seen in 1999 and to examine how loss to follow-up might influence estimates of survival and the impact of delayed access to care (DAC) on survival. METHODS: The status of LFU patients was established by using the mid-2006 update of the FHDH in which their status 12 months after loss to follow-up was added when available and by matching with the Mortalité 2000-Epidemiological Centre for Medical Causes of Death (CépiDc) database, which included HIV-infectedpatients dying in 2000. We compared Kaplan-Meier and hazard ratio (HR) estimates before and after correction for the status of LFU patients. RESULTS: In the mid-2006 updated FHDH, of the patients seen in 1999, 7.5% were LFU: of these, 2.1% later returned for follow-up, with a median time without follow-up in an FHDH centre of 3.5 years, and 5.4% had no further FHDH visits whatsoever, of whom 29.8% died according to Mortalité 2000-CépiDc. After correction, the estimated 1-year survival rates following enrolment in 1999 differed between the original and updated analyses (97.1 vs. 95.9%, respectively; P=0.017); the estimates of mortality HRs associated with DAC did not differ during the first 6 months, but did differ for the 6-18-month period. CONCLUSIONS: Among LFU patients, 28.1% returned to follow-up after several years and at least 21.4% died, which led to a slight overestimation of both survival and the impact of DAC on survival.
Authors: Margaret T May; Robert S Hogg; Amy C Justice; Bryan E Shepherd; Dominique Costagliola; Bruno Ledergerber; Rodolphe Thiébaut; M John Gill; Ole Kirk; Ard van Sighem; Michael S Saag; Gemma Navarro; Paz Sobrino-Vegas; Fiona Lampe; Suzanne Ingle; Jodie L Guest; Heidi M Crane; Antonella D'Arminio Monforte; Jörg J Vehreschild; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: S Krishnan; K Wu; M Smurzynski; R J Bosch; C A Benson; A C Collier; M K Klebert; J Feinberg; S L Koletar Journal: HIV Clin Trials Date: 2011 Jul-Aug
Authors: Hamish McManus; Kathy Petoumenos; Katherine Brown; David Baker; Darren Russell; Tim Read; Don Smith; Lynne Wray; Michelle Giles; Jennifer Hoy; Andrew Carr; Matthew G Law Journal: Antivir Ther Date: 2014-11-07
Authors: Julie Henriques; Mar Pujades-Rodriguez; Megan McGuire; Elisabeth Szumilin; Jean Iwaz; Jean-François Etard; René Ecochard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: C E Kendall; J Raboud; J Donelle; M Loutfy; S B Rourke; A Kroch; C Liddy; R Rosenes; A N Burchell Journal: HIV Med Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 3.094
Authors: Jessie K Edwards; Stephen R Cole; Daniel Westreich; Richard Moore; Christopher Mathews; Elvin Geng; Joseph J Eron; Michael J Mugavero Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrew Boulle; Michael Schomaker; Margaret T May; Robert S Hogg; Bryan E Shepherd; Susana Monge; Olivia Keiser; Fiona C Lampe; Janet Giddy; James Ndirangu; Daniela Garone; Matthew Fox; Suzanne M Ingle; Peter Reiss; Francois Dabis; Dominique Costagliola; Antonella Castagna; Kathrin Ehren; Colin Campbell; M John Gill; Michael Saag; Amy C Justice; Jodie Guest; Heidi M Crane; Matthias Egger; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 11.069