| Literature DB >> 30453945 |
Ousmane Diouf1,2, Astou Gueye-Gaye1,2, Moussa Sarr3, Abdou Salam Mbengue1,2, Christopher S Murrill4, Jacob Dee4, Papa Ousmane Diaw1,2, Ndeye Fatou Ngom-Faye5, Pape Amadou Niang Diallo6, Carlos Suarez7, Massaer Gueye1,2, Aminata Mboup1,2, Coumba Toure-Kane1, Souleymane Mboup1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the expansion of Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission (PMTCT) services in Senegal, there is growing interest in using PMTCT program data in lieu of conducting unlinked anonymous testing (UAT)-based ANC Sentinel Surveillance. For this reason, an evaluation was conducted in 2011-2012 to identify the gaps that need to be addressed while transitioning to using PMTCT program data for surveillance.Entities:
Keywords: Antenatal clinic; HIV; HIV surveillance; Prevention of mother-to-child transmission; Senegal; Sentinel surveillance
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30453945 PMCID: PMC6245718 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-018-3504-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Fig. 1PMTCT program data and UAT surveillance data used
Individual-level agreement of PMTCT HIV testing results versus UAT surveillance
| Region | Site | N | Comparison between the results of HIV testing for PMTCT (R) and those of Sentinel Surveillance (S) | Positive Percent Agreement | Negative percent agreement | PMTCT HIV Prevalence (%) | UAT surveillance HIV Prevalence (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-S+ | R + S+ | R + S- | R-S- | |||||||
| West | CS Mbao | 174 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 169 | 80.0 | 100.0 | 2.9 | 2.3 |
| CS Roi Baudoin | 196 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 194 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| CS de Mbour | 300 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 291 | 71.4 | 99.3 | 2.3 | 2.3 | |
| CS khombole | 272 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 270 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | |
| Centre de santé 10eme | 238 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 229 | 87.5 | 99.6 | 3.4 | 3.4 | |
| PMI Medina | 300 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 297 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| PS Nianing | 138 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 136 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.4 | 1.4 | |
| PS Nguekhokh | 175 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 175 | NA | 100.0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | |
| PS de Mboro | 175 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 173 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | |
| North | CS Dagana | 166 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 164 | 100.0 | 99.4 | 0.6 | 1.2 |
| CS Linguere | 99 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 98 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| CS Matam | 219 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 217 | 50.0 | 100.0 | 0.9 | 0.5 | |
| CS Louga | 272 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 272 | NA | 100.0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | |
| CS Saint Louis | 112 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 112 | NA | 100.0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | |
| PS Bokidiawé | 150 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 150 | NA | 100.0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | |
| PS Ourossogui | 186 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 184 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | |
| PS de Samyabal | 159 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 158 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.6 | 0.6 | |
| Centre | CS Diourbel | 297 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 291 | 83.3 | 100.0 | 2.0 | 1.7 |
| CS Fatick | 164 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 162 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | |
| CS Kasnack | 299 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 296 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| CS Koungheul | 279 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 277 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | |
| CS Ndoffane | 175 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 172 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.7 | 1.7 | |
| CS Sokone | 293 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 289 | 50.0 | 100.0 | 1.4 | 0.7 | |
| CS Touba | 298 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 296 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | |
| CS kaffrine | 184 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 181 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 | |
| PS Dianké | 119 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 119 | NA | 100.0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | |
| PS Tataguine | 175 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 175 | NA | 100.0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | |
| PS de Ngoye | 163 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 161 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | |
| SOS Kaolack | 300 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 297 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| South | C.S Vélingara | 81 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 77 | 100.0 | 96.3 | 1.2 | 4.9 |
| C.S de Goudomp | 299 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 295 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.3 | 1.3 | |
| C.S de Sédhiou | 115 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 111 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 3.5 | 3.5 | |
| CS C Senghor Ziguinchor | 292 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 280 | 91.7 | 100.0 | 4.1 | 3.8 | |
| CS Bignona | 298 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 289 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | |
| CS Boumkiling | 159 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 157 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.3 | 1.3 | |
| CS Kolda | 298 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 285 | 61.5 | 100.0 | 4.4 | 2.7 | |
| CS Salémata | 71 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 71 | NA | 100.0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | |
| CS Saraya | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | NA | 100.0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | |
| CS Tambacounda | 301 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 301 | NA | 100.0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | |
| PS Missira | 160 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 160 | NA | 100.0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | |
| PS Diawara | 175 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 173 | NA | 98.9 | 1,1 | 0,0 | |
| PS Diaobé | 150 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 144 | 33.3 | 100.0 | 4.0 | 1.3 | |
| PS de Kabrousse | 149 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 147 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.3 | 1.3 | |
| Overall | 8658 | 18 | 103 | 9 | 8528 | 85.1 (77.2–90.7%), | 99.9 (95%CI: 99.8–99.9) | Median = 1.1 | Median = 1.0 | |
1. Percentage of positive agreement = (R + S+/R + S+ and R-S+)
2. Percentage of negative agreement = (R-S-)/ (R-S- and R + S-)
With R−/R+ the results of HIV testing for PMTCT
And S-/S+ the results of HIV Sentinel Surveillance
a) The positive percentage agreement (PPA) was calculated as the proportion of pregnant women tested HIV-positive through ANC SS HIV testing (using a combined 4th generation ELISA) who were identified as HIV-positive through routine PMTCT testing (using a 2-rapid testing serial algorithm)
b) The negative percentage agreement (NPA) was calculated as the proportion of pregnant women tested HIV-negative through ANC SS HIV testing (using a combined 4th generation ELISA) who were identified as HIV-negative through routine PMTCT testing (using a 2-rapid testing serial algorithm)
Effect of missing routine PMTCT HIV data on estimated HIV prevalence rates
| ANC Surveillance HIV Prevalence by Routine PMTCT HIV Test Acceptance | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Refused PMTCT HIV testing | Accepted PMTCT HIV testing | |
| HIV+ | 122 | 1 | 121 |
| Total | 8700 | 42 | 8658 |
| HIV Prevalence | 1.4% (1.2–1.6) | 2.3% (0.1–14.1) | 1.4% (1.2–1.7) |
| Measures of Effect of PMTCT Uptake on HIV Prevalence | |||
| Absolute differencea | + 0.9% | ||
| Relative differenceb | + 64.3% | ||
| Percent biasc | 0.00% | ||
aAbsolute difference is the HIV prevalence in those whose PMTCT HIV status is missing minus the HIV prevalence in those for whom it is present
bRelative difference is the absolute difference divided by the HIV prevalence among those for whom the PMTCT HIV status is present
cPercent bias is the HIV prevalence in those for whom PMTCT HIV status is present minus the overall HIV prevalence, divided by the overall HIV prevalence
Quality of data in the antenatal registers
| PMTCT program parameters | Numbera and Percentage of complete & valid data | Numberb and Percentage of sites with less than 90% of complete & valid data | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (%) | % | |||
| Date of visit | 3948 | 99.7 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Age | 3897 | 98.4 | 1 | 2.3 |
| Number of births | 3920 | 99.0 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Number of live births | 3889 | 98.2 | 2 | 4.5 |
| PMTCT HIV test offered | 3374 | 85.2 | 12 | 27.3 |
| PMTCT HIV test acceptance | 3089 | 78.0 | 24 | 54.5 |
| PMTCT HIV test done | 2328 | 58.8 | 37 | 84.1 |
| PMTCT HIV test results delivered | 1865 | 47.1 | 41 | 93.2 |
aCalculated on 90 pregnant women selected for each site from the register before (n = 45 pregnant women) and during (n = 45 pregnant women) the Sentinel Surveillance period. Total = 44 sites participating in DQA × 90 records = 3960 records
bNumber of PMTCT sites participating in DQA