| Literature DB >> 30061969 |
Patrick Kazooba1, Billy Nsubuga Mayanja1, Jonathan Levin1, Ben Masiira1, Pontiano Kaleebu1,2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We investigated factors affecting Virological failure (VF) on first line Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) and evaluated a pragmatic approach to switching to second line ART.Entities:
Keywords: First line ART; conventional; pragmatic; second line ART; virological failure
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30061969 PMCID: PMC6061817 DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2018.29.191.11940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pan Afr Med J
Figure 1:Conceptual framework for factors affecting virological failure and a pragmatic approach to diagnosis of virological failure
Participants’ characteristics at ART initiation
| Factor | Categories | NumbersN | [Total=316](%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 115 | (36.4) |
| Female | 201 | (63.6) | |
| Age (Years) | 14 – 29 | 67 | (21.2) |
| 30 – 39 | 129 | (40.8) | |
| 40 – 49 | 79 | (25.0) | |
| 50+ | 41 | (13.0) | |
| Median age (IQR) in years | 36.5 (IQR) | ||
| Level of education | None or incomplete primary | 213 | (67.4) |
| Complete primary/some secondary | 48 | (15.2) | |
| Complete secondary or higher | 55 | (17.4) | |
| Marital status | Single, separated or widowed | 139 | (44.0) |
| Married or with a steady partner | 177 | (56.0) | |
| Number of steady partners at enrolment | None | 135 | (42.7) |
| One | 166 | (52.5) | |
| Two or more | 15 | (4.75) | |
| Occupation | Farmer | 192 | (60.8) |
| Trader/seller | 42 | (13.3) | |
| Semi-skilled/skilled | 18 | (5.70) | |
| Others | 64 | (20.3) | |
| Alcohol consumption | No | 223 | (70.6) |
| Yes | 93 | (29.4) | |
| CD4 Counts at ART initiation | Median (IQR) | ||
| CD4 group at ART initiation (cells/mm3) | <50 | 64 | (20.3) |
| 50 - 199 | 173 | (54.8) | |
| 200+ | 79 | (25.0) | |
| <400 | 15 | (5.5) | |
| 400 – 999 | 1 | (0.4) | |
| 1000-9999 | 21 | (7.8) | |
| 10000-99999 | 115 | (42.3) | |
| 100,000 – 999999 | 112 | (41.2) | |
| 1000000+ | 8 | (2.9) | |
| Viral load 1 | Median (IQR 3) | 81,758 | (26,721 - 193,184) |
| <15 | 11 | (3.5) | |
| 15-18.5 | 74 | (23.8) | |
| >18.5 | 226 | (72.7) | |
| Body mass index (2.9) | Mean(standard deviation) |
Baseline viral load has missing data on 44 participants
BMI has missing data for 5 participants , IQR - interquartile range
Figure 2Conventional failure survival experience of HIV infected participants since ART initiation–Kaplan Meir estimate
Figure 3Pragmatic failure survival experience of HIV infected participants since ART initiation–Kaplan Meir estimate
Factors associated with conventional virological failure; crude failure rates and hazard ratios
| Factor | Level | Number offailures N (pyar) | Failure ratePer 100 pyar | CrudeHazard ratios*(95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 8 (980) | 8.6 | |||
| Gender | Male | 28(359) | 7.8 | 1 | 0.57 |
| 5 (621) | 9.0 | 1.14 (0.72- 1.80) | |||
| Age in years | 14 – 29 | 23(172) | 13.4 | 1 | 0.28 |
| 30 – 39 | 34 (436) | 7.8 | 0.65 (0.38–1.10) | ||
| 40 – 49 | 19 (262) | 7.3 | 0.59 (0.32 – 1.10) | ||
| 50+ | 8 (110) | 7.3 | 0.57 (0.25 -1.27) | ||
| Educational Level | None/incomplete Primary | 54(647) | 8.3 | 1 | 0.34 |
| incomplete secondary | 16 (132) | 12.1 | 1.43 (0 .82 - 2.50) | ||
| Complete secondary | 14 (201) | 7.0 | 0.85 (0.47 - 1.53) | ||
| Marital | Single separated widowed | 34 (452) | 7.5 | 1 | 0.35 |
| Married/steady partner | 50 (528) | 9.5 | 1.22 (0.37 – 0.78) | ||
| No of partners | None | 34 (460) | 7.4 | 1 | 0.32 |
| One | 48 (480) | 10.0 | 1.30 (0.25 –0.83) | ||
| Two or more | 2 (41) | 4.9 | 0.62 (0.15 -2.60) | ||
| Consumes | No | 54 (683) | 7.9 | 1 | 0.26 |
| Yes | 30(298) | 10.1 | 1.29 (0.83 -2.02) | 0.99 | |
| Occupation | Farmer | 51 (588) | 8.7 | 1 | |
| Trader/seller | 12 (146) | 8.2 | 0.96 (0.51- 1.80) | ||
| Skilled / semi-skilled | 4 (44) | 9.1 | 0.95 (0.34- 2.62) | ||
| Other/missing | 17 (202) | 8.4 | 0.98 (0.56 – 1.71) | ||
| CD4 at | 200+ | 17 (190) | 8.9 | 1 | 0.62 |
| 50- <200 | 46 (590) | 7.8 | 1.02 (0.58-1.78) | ||
| < 50 | 21 (200) | 10.5 | 1.30 (0.69–2.47) | ||
| < 1000 | 2 (56) | 3.6 | 1 | 0.62 | |
| 1000-<10,000 | 5 (57) | 8.8 | 2.30 (0.45-11.88) | ||
| 10000+ | 66 (835) | 7.9 | 2.20 (0.56-9.28) | ||
| Proportion of visits on which good adherence | 95%+ | 47 (7) | 6.7 | 1 | <0.001 |
| 90-94% | 9 (1.6) | 5.7 | 0.83 (0.41-1.71) | ||
| < 90% | 28 (1.2) | 23.1 | 2.99 (1.85-4.82) | ||
| Linear hazard ratio for 10% drop in the proportion of | 1.38 (1.231.55) | ||||
| <18.5 | 57 (710) | 8.0 | 1 | 0.68 | |
| 15-18.5 | 23 (233) | 9.9 | 1.22 (0.76-1.99) | ||
| >15 | 2 (27) | 7.4 | 0.85 (0.21-3.49) | ||
P value from the Likelihood Ratio Test
Baseline viral load has missing data on 11 participants
BMI has missing data for 2 participants
Factors associated with pragmatic virological failure; crude failure rates and hazard ratios
| Factor | Category | N | FailureRate / 100pyar | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 28 (1036) | 2.7 | |||
| Gender | Male | 10 (384) | 2.6 | 1 | 0.90 |
| Female | 18 (652) | 2.8 | 1.03 ( 0.52 –2.23) | ||
| Age (Years) | 14 – 29 | 12 (184) | 6.5 | 1 | 0.04 |
| 30 – 39 | 8 (463) | 1.7 | 0.30 ( 0.09-0.71 ) | ||
| 40 – 49 | 5 (272) | 1.8 | 0.31 ( 0.11-0.93 ) | ||
| 50+ | 3 (117) | 2.6 | 0.43 ( 0.12-1.44 ) | ||
| Level of education | None or incomplete primary | 19 (691) | 2.7 | 1 | 0.33 |
| incomplete secondary | 6 (138) | 4.3 | 1.52 ( 0.62-3.92 ) | ||
| Complete secondary | 3 (207) | 1.4 | 0.61 ( 0.24-1.56 ) | ||
| Marital status | Single, separated or widowed | 11 (471) | 2.3 | 1 | 0.33 |
| Married /steady partner | 17 (564) | 3.0 | 1.22 ( 0.64-2.67 ) | ||
| None | 1 (481) | 0.2 | 1 | 0.23 | |
| One | 17 (513) | 3.3 | 1.34 ( 0.56-2.82 ) | ||
| Two or more | 0 ---- | ---- | . | ||
| Alcohol consumption | No | 16 (717) | 2.2 | 1 | 0.15 |
| Yes | 12 (318) | 3.8 | 1.67 ( 0.81-3.67 ) | ||
| Occupation | Farmer | 17 (654) | 2.6 | 1 | 0.15 |
| Trader/seller | 1 (154) | 0.6 | 0.33 ( 0.03-1.90 ) | ||
| Semi-skilled/skilled | 1 (47) | 2.1 | 0.70 ( 0.11-5.30 ) | ||
| Others | 9 (211) | 4.3 | 1.60 ( 0.74-3.67 ) | ||
| CD4 count at ART initiation (cells/mm3) | 200+ | 7 (196) | 3.6 | 1 | 0.19 |
| 50 – <200 | 16 (625) | 2.6 | 0.87 (0.36 – 2.12) | ||
| <50 | 5 (214) | 2.3 | 0.78 (0.25 – 2.45) | ||
| <1000 | 1 (58) | 1.7 | 1 | 0.32 | |
| 1000- <10,000 | 2 (57) | 3.5 | 1.91 ( 0.20-20.8 ) | ||
| 10000+ | 23 (886) | 2.6 | 1.60 ( 0.20-11.7 ) | ||
| Proportion of visits on which good adherence ( | 95%+ | 12 (731) | 1.6 | 1 | <0.001 |
| 90-94% | 2 (162) | 2.2 | 0.74 (0.16 – 3.29) | ||
| <90% | 14 (139) | 10.1 | 5.05 (2.3 –11.05 ) | ||
| Linear hazard ratio for 10% drop in the proportion of | 1.45 (1.26 -1.71 ) | ||||
| >18.5 | 16 (743) | 2.2 | 1 | 0.33 | |
| 15-18.5 | 10 (255) | 3.9 | 1.93 ( 0.87-4.25 ) | ||
| >18.5 | 1 (28) | 3.6 | 1.47 ( 0.20-11.11) | ||
P value from the Likelihood Ratio Test
Data was missing on the number of steady partners at enrolment for 10 participants with virological failure
aseline viral load has missing data on 2 participants
BMI has missing data4 for 1 participant
Independent predictors of conventional virological failure-results from fitting cox’s models
| Factor | Level | aHR (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years | 14 – 29 | 1 | 0.13 |
| 30 – 39 | 0.70 (0.39 - 1.25) | ||
| 40 – 49 | 0.62 (0.31 - 1.21) | ||
| 50+ | 0.55(0.22 - 1.33) | ||
| Proportion of | Per 10% drop in proportion of visits on which adherence of 95% was reported | 1.83 (1.50 - 2.23) | <0.001 |
| Gender | Male | 1 | 0.67 |
| Female | 1.12 (0.67 - 1.87) | ||
| Consumes alcohol | No | 1 | 0.03 |
| Yes | 1.71(1.05 - 2.79) |
aHR (95%CI) - adjusted Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval)
P-value from the likelihood ratio test
Factors associated with pragmatic failure among individuals with conventional failure - results from logistic regression models
| Factor | Level | ConventionFailuresNC=84 | PragmaticFailuresNP=28 | Proportion ofconventional failures who failed pragmatically (NP/NC) x 100 | Adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years | 14 – 29 | 23 | 12 | (52.2%) | 1 | 0.02 |
| 30 – 39 | 34 | 8 | (23.5%) | 0.12 | ||
| 40 + | 27 | 8 | (29.6%) | 0.14 | ||
| Proportion of visits adherence of | 95%+ | 47 | 12 | (25.5%) | 1 | 0.44 |
| <95% | 37 | 16 | (43.2%) | 1.12 | ||
| Consumes alcohol | No | 54 | 16 | (29.6%) | 1 | 0.06 |
| Yes | 30 | 12 | (40.0%) | 3.14 |
P-value from the likelihood ratio test
Linear aOR showing the increase in failure rates for each 10% decrease in proportion of visits with good adherence
NC- number with conventional virological failure
NP – number with pragmatic virological failure