BACKGROUND: Improved retention-in-care may enhance health outcomes for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). Although laboratory surveillance data may be used to gauge retention, no previous reports have compared laboratory surveillance vs. clinic visit-based measures of retention-in-care. We compared laboratory surveillance vs. clinic visit-based approaches for identifying retention status for PLWHA. METHODS: We examined 2011 patient visit data from the Ruth M. Rothstein CORE Center, Cook County's HIV clinic. We defined retained patients as those with visits every 6 months over 2 years and matched patients classified through visit data against HIV surveillance laboratories reported to the Chicago Department of Health. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operator characteristics of varying laboratory surveillance vs. clinic visit measures of retention. RESULTS: Of patients classified through clinic visit data, 91% of 1714 in-care vs. 22% of 200 out-of-care patients met our most stringent surveillance-based retention definition-having ≥2 viral load/CD4s performed 90 days apart reported by the same laboratory in 2011. Of surveillance laboratory-based definitions for retention, having ≥2 HIV viral load and/or CD4 values at least 3 months apart reported from the same facility possessed the best receiver operator parameters and the receiver operator characteristics' curve comparing several laboratory surveillance vs. clinic visit-based retention measures that had an area under the curve of 0.95. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that surveillance laboratory data can be used to assess retention-in-care for PLWHA. These data suggest that bi-directional data sharing between public health entities and care providers could advance re-engagement efforts.
BACKGROUND: Improved retention-in-care may enhance health outcomes for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). Although laboratory surveillance data may be used to gauge retention, no previous reports have compared laboratory surveillance vs. clinic visit-based measures of retention-in-care. We compared laboratory surveillance vs. clinic visit-based approaches for identifying retention status for PLWHA. METHODS: We examined 2011 patient visit data from the Ruth M. Rothstein CORE Center, Cook County's HIV clinic. We defined retained patients as those with visits every 6 months over 2 years and matched patients classified through visit data against HIV surveillance laboratories reported to the Chicago Department of Health. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operator characteristics of varying laboratory surveillance vs. clinic visit measures of retention. RESULTS: Of patients classified through clinic visit data, 91% of 1714 in-care vs. 22% of 200 out-of-care patients met our most stringent surveillance-based retention definition-having ≥2 viral load/CD4s performed 90 days apart reported by the same laboratory in 2011. Of surveillance laboratory-based definitions for retention, having ≥2 HIV viral load and/or CD4 values at least 3 months apart reported from the same facility possessed the best receiver operator parameters and the receiver operator characteristics' curve comparing several laboratory surveillance vs. clinic visit-based retention measures that had an area under the curve of 0.95. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that surveillance laboratory data can be used to assess retention-in-care for PLWHA. These data suggest that bi-directional data sharing between public health entities and care providers could advance re-engagement efforts.
Authors: Michael J Mugavero; K Rivet Amico; Andrew O Westfall; Heidi M Crane; Anne Zinski; James H Willig; Julia C Dombrowski; Wynne E Norton; James L Raper; Mari M Kitahata; Michael S Saag Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2012-01-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Oluwatoyin M Adeyemi; Britt Livak; Peter McLoyd; Kimberly Y Smith; Audrey L French Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Melanie A Thompson; Michael J Mugavero; K Rivet Amico; Victoria A Cargill; Larry W Chang; Robert Gross; Catherine Orrell; Frederick L Altice; David R Bangsberg; John G Bartlett; Curt G Beckwith; Nadia Dowshen; Christopher M Gordon; Tim Horn; Princy Kumar; James D Scott; Michael J Stirratt; Robert H Remien; Jane M Simoni; Jean B Nachega Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Myron S Cohen; Ying Q Chen; Marybeth McCauley; Theresa Gamble; Mina C Hosseinipour; Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy; James G Hakim; Johnstone Kumwenda; Beatriz Grinsztejn; Jose H S Pilotto; Sheela V Godbole; Sanjay Mehendale; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Breno R Santos; Kenneth H Mayer; Irving F Hoffman; Susan H Eshleman; Estelle Piwowar-Manning; Lei Wang; Joseph Makhema; Lisa A Mills; Guy de Bruyn; Ian Sanne; Joseph Eron; Joel Gallant; Diane Havlir; Susan Swindells; Heather Ribaudo; Vanessa Elharrar; David Burns; Taha E Taha; Karin Nielsen-Saines; David Celentano; Max Essex; Thomas R Fleming Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Edward M Gardner; Margaret P McLees; John F Steiner; Carlos Del Rio; William J Burman Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Moupali Das; Priscilla Lee Chu; Glenn-Milo Santos; Susan Scheer; Eric Vittinghoff; Willi McFarland; Grant N Colfax Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alan E Greenberg; David W Purcell; Christopher M Gordon; Rebecca J Barasky; Carlos del Rio Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Eva A Enns; Cavan S Reilly; Beth A Virnig; Karen Baker; Nicholas Vogenthaler; Keith Henry Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Lucia R I Millham; Justine A Scott; Paul E Sax; Fatma M Shebl; Krishna P Reddy; Elena Losina; Rochelle P Walensky; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Elizabeth A Gilliams; Rachel J Ammirati; Minh L T Nguyen; Amit A Shahane; Eugene W Farber; Vincent C Marconi Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 3.771