Angela M Bengtson1, Christopher Colvin1,2,3, Kipruto Kirwa4, Morna Cornell5, Mark N Lurie1. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 2. Division of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 4. Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA. 5. Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Estimates of retention in antiretroviral treatment (ART) programmes may be biased if patients who transfer to healthcare clinics are misclassified as lost to follow-up (LTFU) at their original clinic. In a large cohort, we estimated retention in care accounting for patient transfers using medical records. METHODS: Using linked electronic medical records, we followed adults living with HIV (PLWH) in Cape Town, South Africa from ART initiation (2012-2016) through database closure at 36 months or 30 June 2016, whichever came first. Retention was defined as alive and with a healthcare visit in the 180 days between database closure and administrative censoring on 31 December 2016. Participants who died or did not have a healthcare visit in > 180 days were censored at their last healthcare visit. We estimated the cumulative incidence of retention using Kaplan-Meier methods considering (i) only records from a participant's ART initiation clinic (not accounting for transfers) and (ii) all records (accounting for transfers), over time and by gender. We estimated risk differences and bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals to quantify misclassification in retention estimates due to patient transfers. RESULTS: We included 3406 PLWH initiating ART. Retention through 36 months on ART rose from 45.4% (95% CI 43.6%, 47.2%) to 54.3% (95% CI 52.4%, 56.1%) after accounting for patient transfers. Overall, 8.9% (95% CI 8.1%, 9.7%) of participants were misclassified as LTFU due to patient transfers. CONCLUSIONS: Patient transfers can appreciably bias estimates of retention in HIV care. Electronic medical records can help quantify patient transfers and improve retention estimates.
BACKGROUND: Estimates of retention in antiretroviral treatment (ART) programmes may be biased if patients who transfer to healthcare clinics are misclassified as lost to follow-up (LTFU) at their original clinic. In a large cohort, we estimated retention in care accounting for patient transfers using medical records. METHODS: Using linked electronic medical records, we followed adults living with HIV (PLWH) in Cape Town, South Africa from ART initiation (2012-2016) through database closure at 36 months or 30 June 2016, whichever came first. Retention was defined as alive and with a healthcare visit in the 180 days between database closure and administrative censoring on 31 December 2016. Participants who died or did not have a healthcare visit in > 180 days were censored at their last healthcare visit. We estimated the cumulative incidence of retention using Kaplan-Meier methods considering (i) only records from a participant's ART initiation clinic (not accounting for transfers) and (ii) all records (accounting for transfers), over time and by gender. We estimated risk differences and bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals to quantify misclassification in retention estimates due to patient transfers. RESULTS: We included 3406 PLWH initiating ART. Retention through 36 months on ART rose from 45.4% (95% CI 43.6%, 47.2%) to 54.3% (95% CI 52.4%, 56.1%) after accounting for patient transfers. Overall, 8.9% (95% CI 8.1%, 9.7%) of participants were misclassified as LTFU due to patient transfers. CONCLUSIONS: Patient transfers can appreciably bias estimates of retention in HIV care. Electronic medical records can help quantify patient transfers and improve retention estimates.
Authors: Angela M Bengtson; Wiza Kumwenda; Mark Lurie; Brandon Klyn; Michael Owino; William C Miller; Vivian Go; Mina C Hosseinipour Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2020-02
Authors: Mark N Lurie; Kipruto Kirwa; Julia Callaway; Morna Cornell; Andrew Boulle; Angela M Bengtson; Mariette Smith; Natalie Leon; Christopher Colvin Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Martin W G Brinkhof; Ben D Spycher; Constantin Yiannoutsos; Ralf Weigel; Robin Wood; Eugène Messou; Andrew Boulle; Matthias Egger; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Morna Cornell; Karl Technau; Lara Fairall; Robin Wood; Harry Moultrie; Gilles van Cutsem; Janet Giddy; Lerato Mohapi; Brian Eley; Patrick MacPhail; Hans Prozesky; Helena Rabie; Mary-Ann Davies; Nicola Maxwell; Andrew Boulle Journal: S Afr Med J Date: 2009-09
Authors: Graeme Meintjes; John Black; Francesca Conradie; Sipho Dlamini; Gary Maartens; Thandekile C Manzini; Moeketsi Mathe; Michelle Moorhouse; Yunus Moosa; Jennifer Nash; Catherine Orrell; Francois Venter; Douglas Wilson Journal: South Afr J HIV Med Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 2.744
Authors: Andreas D Haas; Elizabeth Zaniewski; Nanina Anderegg; Nathan Ford; Matthew P Fox; Michael Vinikoor; François Dabis; Denis Nash; Jean d'Amour Sinayobye; Thêodore Niyongabo; Aristophane Tanon; Armel Poda; Adebola A Adedimeji; Andrew Edmonds; Mary-Ann Davies; Matthias Egger Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Ana Lucia Espinosa Dice; Angela M Bengtson; Kevin M Mwenda; Christopher J Colvin; Mark N Lurie Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 2.692