Janne Estill1, Hannock Tweya, Matthias Egger, Gilles Wandeler, Caryl Feldacker, Leigh F Johnson, Nello Blaser, Luisa Salazar Vizcaya, Sam Phiri, Olivia Keiser. 1. *Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; †The International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Paris, France; ‡Lighthouse Trust, Lilongwe, Malawi; §Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; ‖Department of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland; ¶Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Dakar, Dakar, Senegal; #International Training and Education Center for Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Treatment as prevention depends on retaining HIV-infected patients in care. We investigated the effect on HIV transmission of bringing patients lost to follow-up (LTFU) back into care. DESIGN: Mathematical model. METHODS: Stochastic mathematical model of cohorts of 1000 HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy, based on the data from 2 clinics in Lilongwe, Malawi. We calculated cohort viral load (sum of individual mean viral loads each year) and used a mathematical relationship between viral load and transmission probability to estimate the number of new HIV infections. We simulated 4 scenarios: "no LTFU" (all patients stay in care), "no tracing" (patients LTFU are not traced), "immediate tracing" (after missed clinic appointment), and "delayed tracing" (after 6 months). RESULTS: About 440 of 1000 patients were LTFU over 5 years. Cohort viral loads (million copies/mL per 1000 patients) were 3.7 [95% prediction interval (PrI), 2.9-4.9] for no LTFU, 8.6 (95% PrI, 7.3-10.0) for no tracing, 7.7 (95% PrI, 6.2-9.1) for immediate, and 8.0 (95% PrI, 6.7-9.5) for delayed tracing. Comparing no LTFU with no tracing, the number of new infections increased from 33 (95% PrI, 29-38) to 54 (95% PrI, 47-60) per 1000 patients. Immediate tracing prevented 3.6 (95% PrI, -3.3 to 12.8) and delayed tracing 2.5 (95% PrI, -5.8 to 11.1) new infections per 1000. Immediate tracing was more efficient than delayed tracing: to 116 and 142 tracing efforts, respectively, were needed prevent 1 new infection. CONCLUSIONS: Tracing of patients LTFU enhances the preventive effect of antiretroviral therapy, but the number of transmissions prevented is small.
OBJECTIVE: Treatment as prevention depends on retaining HIV-infectedpatients in care. We investigated the effect on HIV transmission of bringing patients lost to follow-up (LTFU) back into care. DESIGN: Mathematical model. METHODS: Stochastic mathematical model of cohorts of 1000 HIV-infectedpatients on antiretroviral therapy, based on the data from 2 clinics in Lilongwe, Malawi. We calculated cohort viral load (sum of individual mean viral loads each year) and used a mathematical relationship between viral load and transmission probability to estimate the number of new HIV infections. We simulated 4 scenarios: "no LTFU" (all patients stay in care), "no tracing" (patients LTFU are not traced), "immediate tracing" (after missed clinic appointment), and "delayed tracing" (after 6 months). RESULTS: About 440 of 1000 patients were LTFU over 5 years. Cohort viral loads (million copies/mL per 1000 patients) were 3.7 [95% prediction interval (PrI), 2.9-4.9] for no LTFU, 8.6 (95% PrI, 7.3-10.0) for no tracing, 7.7 (95% PrI, 6.2-9.1) for immediate, and 8.0 (95% PrI, 6.7-9.5) for delayed tracing. Comparing no LTFU with no tracing, the number of new infections increased from 33 (95% PrI, 29-38) to 54 (95% PrI, 47-60) per 1000 patients. Immediate tracing prevented 3.6 (95% PrI, -3.3 to 12.8) and delayed tracing 2.5 (95% PrI, -5.8 to 11.1) new infections per 1000. Immediate tracing was more efficient than delayed tracing: to 116 and 142 tracing efforts, respectively, were needed prevent 1 new infection. CONCLUSIONS: Tracing of patients LTFU enhances the preventive effect of antiretroviral therapy, but the number of transmissions prevented is small.
Authors: R Zachariah; R Teck; L Buhendwa; M Fitzerland; S Labana; C Chinji; P Humblet; A D Harries Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Date: 2006-09-08 Impact factor: 2.184
Authors: T C Quinn; M J Wawer; N Sewankambo; D Serwadda; C Li; F Wabwire-Mangen; M O Meehan; T Lutalo; R H Gray Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-03-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Massaquoi; R Zachariah; M Manzi; O Pasulani; D Misindi; B Mwagomba; A Bauernfeind; Anthony D Harries Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 2.184
Authors: Martin W G Brinkhof; Andrew Boulle; Ralf Weigel; Eugène Messou; Colin Mathers; Catherine Orrell; François Dabis; Margaret Pascoe; Matthias Egger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-04-28 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Hannock Tweya; Caryl Feldacker; Janne Estill; Andreas Jahn; Wingston Ng'ambi; Anne Ben-Smith; Olivia Keiser; Mphatso Bokosi; Matthias Egger; Colin Speight; Joe Gumulira; Sam Phiri Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Morna Cornell; Leigh F Johnson; Robin Wood; Frank Tanser; Matthew P Fox; Hans Prozesky; Michael Schomaker; Matthias Egger; Mary-Ann Davies; Andrew Boulle Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Janne Estill; Cliff C Kerr; Nello Blaser; Luisa Salazar-Vizcaya; Lyson Tenthani; David P Wilson; Olivia Keiser Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Janne Estill; Nathan Ford; Luisa Salazar-Vizcaya; Andreas D Haas; Nello Blaser; Vincent Habiyambere; Olivia Keiser Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 12.767