Victor Ssempijja1, Martha Nason2, Gertrude Nakigozi3, Anthony Ndyanabo3, Ron Gray3,4, Maria Wawer3,4, Larry W Chang3,4,5, Erin Gabriel6, Thomas C Quinn5,7, David Serwadda3,8, Steven J Reynolds3,5,7. 1. Clinical Monitoring Research Program Directorate, Clinical Research Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, Frederick, Maryland, USA. 2. Biostatistics Research Branch, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 3. Rakai Health Sciences Program, Kalisizo, Uganda. 4. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 6. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 7. Division of Intramural Research, NIAID, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 8. Makerere University, School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART), routine annual viral load monitoring has been adopted by most countries, but reduced frequency of viral load monitoring may offer cost savings in resource-limited settings. We investigated if viral load monitoring frequency could be reduced while maintaining detection of treatment failure. METHODS: The Rakai Health Sciences Program performed routine, biannual viral load monitoring on 2489 people living with human immunodeficiency virus (age ≥15 years). On the basis of these data, we built a 2-stage simulation model to compare different viral load monitoring schemes. We fit Weibull regression models for time to viral load >1000 copies/mL (treatment failure), and simulated data for 10 000 individuals over 5 years to compare 5 monitoring schemes to the current viral load testing every 6 months and every 12 months. RESULTS: Among 7 monitoring schemes tested, monitoring every 6 months for all subjects had the fewest months of undetected failure but also had the highest number of viral load tests. Adaptive schemes using previous viral load measurements to inform future monitoring significantly decreased the number of viral load tests without markedly increasing the number of months of undetected failure. The best adaptive monitoring scheme resulted in a 67% reduction in viral load measurements, while increasing the months of undetected failure by <20%. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive viral load monitoring based on previous viral load measurements may be optimal for maintaining patient care while reducing costs, allowing more patients to be treated and monitored. Future empirical studies to evaluate differentiated monitoring are warranted.
BACKGROUND: After scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART), routine annual viral load monitoring has been adopted by most countries, but reduced frequency of viral load monitoring may offer cost savings in resource-limited settings. We investigated if viral load monitoring frequency could be reduced while maintaining detection of treatment failure. METHODS: The Rakai Health Sciences Program performed routine, biannual viral load monitoring on 2489 people living with human immunodeficiency virus (age ≥15 years). On the basis of these data, we built a 2-stage simulation model to compare different viral load monitoring schemes. We fit Weibull regression models for time to viral load >1000 copies/mL (treatment failure), and simulated data for 10 000 individuals over 5 years to compare 5 monitoring schemes to the current viral load testing every 6 months and every 12 months. RESULTS: Among 7 monitoring schemes tested, monitoring every 6 months for all subjects had the fewest months of undetected failure but also had the highest number of viral load tests. Adaptive schemes using previous viral load measurements to inform future monitoring significantly decreased the number of viral load tests without markedly increasing the number of months of undetected failure. The best adaptive monitoring scheme resulted in a 67% reduction in viral load measurements, while increasing the months of undetected failure by <20%. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive viral load monitoring based on previous viral load measurements may be optimal for maintaining patient care while reducing costs, allowing more patients to be treated and monitored. Future empirical studies to evaluate differentiated monitoring are warranted.
Authors: Alexandra Calmy; Nathan Ford; Bernard Hirschel; Steven J Reynolds; Lut Lynen; Eric Goemaere; Felipe Garcia de la Vega; Luc Perrin; William Rodriguez Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2006-11-28 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Karen Schneider; Thanyawee Puthanakit; Stephen Kerr; Matthew G Law; David A Cooper; Basil Donovan; Nittaya Phanuphak; Virat Sirisanthana; Jintanat Ananworanich; June Ohata; David P Wilson Journal: AIDS Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Steven J Reynolds; Gertrude Nakigozi; Kevin Newell; Anthony Ndyanabo; Ronald Galiwongo; Iga Boaz; Thomas C Quinn; Ron Gray; Maria Wawer; David Serwadda Journal: AIDS Date: 2009-03-27 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Janne Estill; Matthias Egger; Nello Blaser; Luisa Salazar Vizcaya; Daniela Garone; Robin Wood; Jennifer Campbell; Timothy B Hallett; Olivia Keiser Journal: AIDS Date: 2013-06-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Allyson V Ritchie; Ines Ushiro-Lumb; Daniel Edemaga; Hrishikesh A Joshi; Annemiek De Ruiter; Elisabeth Szumilin; Isabelle Jendrulek; Megan McGuire; Neha Goel; Pia I Sharma; Jean-Pierre Allain; Helen H Lee Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Anna Grimsrud; Helen Bygrave; Meg Doherty; Peter Ehrenkranz; Tom Ellman; Robert Ferris; Nathan Ford; Bactrin Killingo; Lynette Mabote; Tara Mansell; Annette Reinisch; Isaac Zulu; Linda-Gail Bekker Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Adam Brand; Susanne May; James P Hughes; Gertrude Nakigozi; Steven J Reynolds; Erin E Gabriel Journal: Stat Med Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 2.497