Morna Cornell1, Richard Lessells, Matthew P Fox, Daniela B Garone, Janet Giddy, Lukas Fenner, Landon Myer, Andrew Boulle. 1. *Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research and Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; †Africa Centre for Health and Population Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Mtubatuba, South Africa; ‡Department of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom; §Centre for Global Health and Development, Boston University, Boston, MA; ‖Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; ¶Medecins Sans Frontieres, Cape Town, South Africa; #McCord Hospital, Durban, South Africa; **Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; and ††Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Little is known about outcomes after transfer out (TFO) and loss to follow-up (LTF) and how differential outcomes might bias mortality estimates, as analyses generally censor or exclude TFOs/LTF. Using data linked to the National Population Register, we explored mortality among TFO and LTF patients compared with patients who were retained and investigated how linkage impacted on mortality estimates. METHODS: A cohort analysis of routine data on adults with civil identification numbers starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) 2004-2009 in 4 large South African ART cohorts. The number, proportion, timing, and mortality of TFOs and LTF were reported. Mortality was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox's proportional hazards, and competing risks regression. RESULTS: Before linkage, 1207 patients (6%) had died, 2624 (13%) were LTF, 1067 (5%) were TFO and 14,583 (75%) were retained. Compared with retained, mortality risk was 3 times higher among TFO patients [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 3.11; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.42 to 3.99] and 20 times higher among LTF patients (aHR, 22.03; 95% CI: 20.05 to 24.21). Excluding early deaths after TFO or LTF, the risk was comparable among TFOs and retained (aHR, 0.75; 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.03) and higher among LTF (aHR, 2.85; 95% CI: 2.43 to 3.33). After linkage, corrected mortality was higher than site-reported mortality. Censoring did not, however, lead to substantial underestimation of mortality among TFOs. CONCLUSIONS: Although TFO and LTF predicted mortality, the lower incidence of TFO and subsequent death compared with LTF meant that censoring TFOs did not bias mortality estimates. Future cohort analyses should explicitly consider proportions of TFO/LTF and mortality event rates.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Little is known about outcomes after transfer out (TFO) and loss to follow-up (LTF) and how differential outcomes might bias mortality estimates, as analyses generally censor or exclude TFOs/LTF. Using data linked to the National Population Register, we explored mortality among TFO and LTFpatients compared with patients who were retained and investigated how linkage impacted on mortality estimates. METHODS: A cohort analysis of routine data on adults with civil identification numbers starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) 2004-2009 in 4 large South African ART cohorts. The number, proportion, timing, and mortality of TFOs and LTF were reported. Mortality was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox's proportional hazards, and competing risks regression. RESULTS: Before linkage, 1207 patients (6%) had died, 2624 (13%) were LTF, 1067 (5%) were TFO and 14,583 (75%) were retained. Compared with retained, mortality risk was 3 times higher among TFOpatients [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 3.11; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.42 to 3.99] and 20 times higher among LTFpatients (aHR, 22.03; 95% CI: 20.05 to 24.21). Excluding early deaths after TFO or LTF, the risk was comparable among TFOs and retained (aHR, 0.75; 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.03) and higher among LTF (aHR, 2.85; 95% CI: 2.43 to 3.33). After linkage, corrected mortality was higher than site-reported mortality. Censoring did not, however, lead to substantial underestimation of mortality among TFOs. CONCLUSIONS: Although TFO and LTF predicted mortality, the lower incidence of TFO and subsequent death compared with LTF meant that censoring TFOs did not bias mortality estimates. Future cohort analyses should explicitly consider proportions of TFO/LTF and mortality event rates.
Authors: Samuel J Clark; Mark A Collinson; Kathleen Kahn; Kyle Drullinger; Stephen M Tollman Journal: Scand J Public Health Suppl Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Joseph Kwong-Leung Yu; Solomon Chih-Cheng Chen; Kuo-Yang Wang; Chao-Sung Chang; Simon D Makombe; Erik J Schouten; Anthony D Harries Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Martin W G Brinkhof; François Dabis; Landon Myer; David R Bangsberg; Andrew Boulle; Denis Nash; Mauro Schechter; Christian Laurent; Olivia Keiser; Margaret May; Eduardo Sprinz; Matthias Egger; Xavier Anglaret Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Paula Braitstein; Martin W G Brinkhof; François Dabis; Mauro Schechter; Andrew Boulle; Paolo Miotti; Robin Wood; Christian Laurent; Eduardo Sprinz; Catherine Seyler; David R Bangsberg; Eric Balestre; Jonathan A C Sterne; Margaret May; Matthias Egger Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-03-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mweete D Nglazi; Richard Kaplan; Catherine Orrell; Landon Myer; Robin Wood; Linda-Gail Bekker; Stephen D Lawn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alfred C Banda; Simon D Makombe; Andreas Jahn; Hannock Tweya; Stuart Chuka; Joseph Kwong-Leung Yu; Bethany Hedt; Ralf Weigel; Amon Nkhata; Erik J Schouten; Kelita Kamoto; Anthony D Harries Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-01-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joseph Kwong-Leung Yu; Teck-Siang Tok; Jih-Jin Tsai; Wu-Shou Chang; Rose K Dzimadzi; Ping-Hsiang Yen; Simon D Makombe; Amon Nkhata; Erik J Schouten; Kelita Kamoto; Anthony D Harries Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-04-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Awachana Jiamsakul; Azar Kariminia; Keri N Althoff; Carina Cesar; Claudia P Cortes; Mary-Ann Davies; Viet Chau Do; Brian Eley; John Gill; Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy; Daisy Maria Machado; Richard Moore; Hans Prozesky; Elizabeth Zaniewski; Matthew Law Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Kathrin Zürcher; Anne Mooser; Nanina Anderegg; Olga Tymejczyk; Margaret J Couvillon; Denis Nash; Matthias Egger Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Neo Christopher Chung; Carolyn Bolton-Moore; Roma Chilengi; Margaret P Kasaro; Jeffrey S A Stringer; Benjamin H Chi Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: A Jiamsakul; S Kiertiburanakul; O T Ng; R Chaiwarith; W Wong; R Ditangco; K V Nguyen; A Avihingsanon; S Pujari; C D Do; M-P Lee; P S Ly; E Yunihastuti; N Kumarasamy; A Kamarulzaman; J Tanuma; F Zhang; J Y Choi; P Kantipong; Blh Sim; J Ross; M Law; T P Merati Journal: HIV Med Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: James G Carlucci; Meridith Blevins Peratikos; Aaron M Kipp; Mary L Lindegren; Quy T Du; Lorna Renner; Gary Reubenson; John Ssali; Marcel Yotebieng; Anna M Mandalakas; Mary-Ann Davies; Marie Ballif; Lukas Fenner; April C Pettit Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Anna Grimsrud; Morna Cornell; Michael Schomaker; Matthew P Fox; Catherine Orrell; Hans Prozesky; Kathryn Stinson; Frank Tanser; Matthias Egger; Landon Myer Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 3.710