Socio-economic condition and lack of virological suppression among adults and adolescents receiving antiretroviral therapy in Ethiopia.

INTRODUCTION: The potential impact of socio-economic condition on virological suppression during antiretroviral treatment (ART) in sub-Saharan Africa is largely unknown. In this case-control study, we compared socio-economic factors among Ethiopian ART recipients with lack of virological suppression to those with undetectable viral load (VL).
METHODS: Cases (VL>1000 copies/ml) and controls (VL<150 copies/ml) aged ≥15years, with ART for >6 months and with available VL results within the last 3 months, were identified from registries at public ART clinics in Central Ethiopia. Questionnaire-based interviews on socio-economic characteristics, health condition and transmission risk behavior were conducted. Univariate variables associated with VL>1000 copies/ml (p<0.25) were added to a multivariable logistic regression model.
RESULTS: Among 307 participants (155 cases, 152 controls), 61.2% were female, and the median age was 38 years (IQR 32-46). Median HIV-RNA load among cases was 6,904 copies/ml (IQR 2,843-26,789). Compared to controls, cases were younger (median 36 vs. 39 years; p = 0.004), more likely to be male (46.5% vs. 30.9%; p = 0.005) and had lower pre-ART CD4 cell counts (170 vs. 220 cells/μl; p = 0.009). In multivariable analysis of urban residents (94.8%), VL>1000 copies/ml was associated with lower relative wealth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.98; 95% CI 1.49-5.94; p = 0.016), geographic work mobility (aOR 6.27, 95% CI 1.82-21.6; p = 0.016), younger age (aOR 0.94 [year], 95% CI 0.91-0.98; p = 0.011), longer duration of ART (aOR 1.19 [year], 95% CI 1.07-1.33; p = 0.020), and suboptimal (aOR 3.83, 95% CI 1.33-10.2; p = 0.048) or poor self-perceived wellbeing (aOR 9.75, 95% CI 2.85-33.4; p = 0.012), after correction for multiple comparisons. High-risk sexual behavior and substance use was not associated with lack of virological suppression.
CONCLUSION: Geographic work mobility and lower relative wealth were associated with lack of virological suppression among Ethiopian ART recipients in this predominantly urban population. These characteristics indicate increased risk of treatment failure and the need for targeted interventions for persons with these risk factors.

Introduction

By the end of 2017, 15.3 of an estimated 25.7 million people living with HIV (PLHIV) in sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) [1]. While ART results in suppressed HIV replication in most cases, many patients fail to achieve persistent virological suppression [2]. Incomplete virological suppression is commonly due to irregular drug intake and/or antiretroviral drug resistance [3, 4]. This compromises treatment outcomes for the individual, and also entails a risk of onward transmission, including dissemination of drug-resistant strains [5-7].

Lack of virological suppression during ART has been associated with advanced immunosuppression, high baseline viral load, longer ART duration, younger age and male gender [8-13]. Failure to achieve virological suppression has also been linked to various socio-demographic factors, including unstable housing, low educational status, unemployment and lack of financial or social support [14-17]. These factors have been associated with disease outcomes in a range of both communicable and non-communicable conditions, and are considered as important determinants of health [18]. However, with regard to virologic response during ART, such relationships have mainly been investigated in high-income countries, and data is limited from high-burden low-income settings. For the long-term sustainability of ART programs, it is important to understand conditions contributing to lack of virological suppression, so that targeted interventions can be developed and implemented [7].

In many sub-Saharan African countries, the HIV epidemic is concentrated to certain geographic areas, as well as to key population groups. This is also the case for Ethiopia; whereas the overall national HIV prevalence is estimated at 0.9%, this figure is much higher in urban areas along the main highway transport routes [19-21]. Correspondingly, the estimated HIV prevalence among Ethiopian female commercial sex workers and long-distance truck drivers is high at 23% and 4.6%, respectively [22-24].

Similar to most other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Ethiopia has implemented the World Health Organization (WHO) ‘treat-all’ policy [25]. Although treatment coverage has increased since ART delivery through the public health sector was introduced in 2005, less than 75% of PLHIV received ART in 2017 [19, 26, 27]. Furthermore, access to viral load (VL) testing for ART monitoring remains below 70% [7]. Cohort studies of patients starting ART in Ethiopia have shown that 20–30% of persons remaining in care after 6–12 months had one or several VL measurements >1000 copies/ml, implying high risk of treatment failure [12, 28, 29].

In this study, we aimed to explore the impact of socio-economic and demographic factors on virological suppression during ART. Since such factors might be associated with risk of HIV transmission, we also investigated whether lack of virological suppression during ART is associated with high-risk sexual behavior.

Methods

Study setting

This study was performed at five public clinics providing ART, located in the city of Adama and surrounding towns in Central Ethiopia. The uptake area is located along the Addis Ababa-Djibouti highway, the main transport corridor in Ethiopia [20, 22, 23].

Study design and procedure

Participants were identified from clinic registries, using a case-control design. These registries are separate for each study clinic, and contain data on time of ART initiation, ART regimens, CD4 cell counts, VL results, age and sex. All persons aged ≥15 years, with ART since ≥6 months and with a recorded VL result during the recent 3 months were eligible for inclusion. Cases were defined as patients with ≥1 measurements of HIV RNA >1000 copies/ml during the recent 3 months, whereas controls were required to have a recent VL measurement <150 copies/ml, and no recorded previous VL result exceeding this level.

For each person with a recorded VL result >1000 copies/ml found, at least one person with VL<150 copies/ml was selected randomly (without matching for age, sex or ART history) from the same registry as a potential control with the aid of a random number generator. Subsequently, previous recorded VL results were searched for these individuals. Since this procedure would lead to exclusion of some potential controls due to previous records of VL>1000 copies/ml, an excess of potential controls was obtained in the first step. For inclusion, access to individual medical records for retrieval of additional data was also required. After identification of potential study participants, these persons were contacted by phone and/or home visit and informed about the study, with an offer to return to the study clinic. At this visit, oral and written information was provided. Participants were included if written informed consent was obtained at this visit.

A minimum sample size (n = 294) for completed interviews was estimated using the Fleiss formula with continuity-correction based on an assumed prevalence of unstable employment and relative poverty of 50% among controls [30]; a two-sided confidence interval (CI) of 95%; a study power of 0.8; and a minimal detectable odds ratio (OR) of 2.0 [31].

Face-to-face interviews were conducted by MP and a trained facilitator with knowledge of the two main local languages (Amharic and Afan Oromo). Based on participant preference, the interviews were held in either of these languages in separate rooms at the respective study clinics between October and December 2018. The interviews followed a structured questionnaire translated from English into the two local languages and lasted approximately 30 minutes.

The questionnaire covered demographic and socio-economic characteristics (education level, employment, household income and wealth) and aspects of mental, physical and sexual health, including consumption of alcohol and khat (an amphetamine-like stimulant plant commonly used in Ethiopia). The following standardized survey tools were incorporated: the 15-question EquityTool Ethiopia (adapted and simplified from the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey [DHS]) in order to estimate relative wealth indices based on availability of items and services in households [32, 33]; the 2- and 9-question Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ)-2 and PHQ-9 translated into the local languages as screening for depressive disorder [34]; and the Fast Alcohol Screening Test (FAST) and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) as screening for harmful alcohol use [35]. For PHQ-2 score ≥3, the PHQ-9 questionnaire was applied, and for FAST scores ≥3, AUDIT was applied.

Statistical analysis

Data were directly entered into Microsoft Excel. Data cleaning and analysis was performed using data analysis software SPSS 25.0 [36]. Unmatched univariate analysis was performed on continuous (Mann-Whitney U test) and categorical variables (logistic regression). For univariate analysis, a p-value <0.05 was considered as significant. Variables with p<0.25 were added to a multivariable logistic regression model. Variables showing multicollinearity (variance inflation factor [VIF]>5 in linear logistic regression including independent dummy categorical and continuous variables) or for which the proportion of missing data was >10%, as well as those that only concerned a minor subgroup of participants were excluded; this corresponded to the following variables: work type, recent CD4 count, AUDIT score and sexual behavior variables within the last month. The model was adapted through a stepwise backwards elimination protocol [37]. Variables with p<0.10 were kept in the model, as well as variables for which elimination led to >15% confounding effect on remaining variables. All eliminated variables were then re-entered, and those with p<0.15 were kept in the model. Holm-Šídák correction was used in the final model to determine statistical significant risk factors [38]. A separate analysis aggregated by sex was performed, comparing factors associated with VL>1000 copies/ml in univariate analysis.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Oromia Regional Health Bureau Ethical Review Committee. The research was conducted in accordance with the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki. All study participants received written and oral information about the study in either of the two local languages and provided written informed consent. For illiterate study participants, oral information was provided, and consent was confirmed through an impartial witness.

Results

Study participants

During the three-month period preceding initiation of the study, 5,025 VL results were recorded in the clinic registries from persons ≥15 years of age. Among these, 360 (7.2%) had HIV RNA>1000 copies/ml, whereas 4,537 (90.3%) had HIV RNA<150 copies/ml.

We identified 471 individuals (220 cases and 251 controls) based on 527 viral load results extracted from the VL registries. Medical records were retrieved for 431 (91.5%) of these (Fig 1). Subsequently, 378 subjects were reached by phone or home visit; of these, 307 (81.2%) accepted participation (155 cases and 152 controls).

Fig 1

Flowchart of study participant recruitment.

Participant characteristics

A majority of participants were female (61.2%), and the median age was 38 years (IQR 32–46). Compared to controls (Table 1), cases were younger (median 36 years vs. 39 years; p = 0.004) and more likely to be male (46.5% vs. 30.9%; p = 0.005). Cases had lower pre-ART and recent CD4 counts compared to controls (170 cells/μl vs. 220 cells/μl; p = 0.009, and 368 cells/μl vs. 518 cells/μl; p = 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, a higher proportion of cases received second-line ART (11.0% vs. 2.0%; p = 0.007).

Table 1

Comparison of demographic and medical characteristics of study participants on ART with lack of virological suppression and with undetectable viral load.

	Unsuppressed VL (>1000 copies/ml; n = 155)	Undetectable VL (<150 copies/ml; n = 152)	Odds Ratio (95% CI)	p-value
Age (years; median, IQR)	36 (30–44)	39 (34–48)		0.004
Gender
Male	72 (46.5)	47 (30.9)	1.94 (1.22–3.10)	0.005
Female	83 (53.5)	105 (69.1)	1.00
Pre-ART CD4 count† (cells/ mm3; median, IQR)	170 (90–274)	220 (124–357)		0.009
Recent CD4 count, <1 year‡ (cells/ mm3; median, IQR)	368 (275–454)	518 (371–617)		0.001
Duration of ART (years; median, IQR)	8.7 (6.4–10.9)	7.8 (4.6–10.2)		0.027
ART regimen§				0.007
First-line	137 (89.0)	149 (98.0)	1.00
Second-line	17 (11.0)	3 (2.0)¶	6.17 (1.77–21.3)
Transfer-in to current ART clinic				0.129
Yes	28 (18.2)	18 (11.8)	1.64 (0.87–3.11)
No	127 (81.8)	147 (88.2)	1.00
ART clinic location				0.169
Same district as residence	128 (82.6)	131 (87.6)	1.00
Different district	27 (17.4)	21 (12.4)	1.57 (0.83–2.99)
Viral load (copies/ml; median, IQR)	6904 (2843–26789)	<150
1000–10,000	89 (58.2)
10,000–100,000	45 (29.4)
>100,000	19 (12.4)

Binominal logistic regression for categorical variables. Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. Data reported in absolute number and percentage (in brackets) and unadjusted odds ratios, unless otherwise specified. VL: viral load; CD4: CD4 cell count; IQR: Interquartile range; ART: Antiretroviral therapy.

† Missing values of pre-ART CD4: 20 (cases); 10 (controls)

‡ Missing values of recent CD4 (within 1 year): 120 (cases); 111 (controls)

§ First-line regimens (based on non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors): Nevirapine-based: 40.9% (cases), 37.5% (controls); Efavirenz-based: 48.0% (cases), 60.5% (controls); Second-line regimens (based on protease inhibitors): Atazanavir/ritonavir-based: 9.0% (cases), 1.3% (controls); Lopinavir/ritonavir-based: 1.3% (cases), 0.7% (controls)

¶ No previous detectable VL results found

Apart from higher pre-ART CD4 counts in the subset with VL>1000 copies/ml, no significant differences in characteristics were observed among persons who could not be considered for inclusion due to lack of medical records (n = 40) or unsuccessful contact attempts (n = 53), as compared to included participants (S1 Table).

The median HIV RNA level among cases was 6,904 copies/ml (IQR 2,843–26,789). Sixty-four cases (41.8%) had VL>10,000 copies/ml, and 19 (12.4%) had VL>100,000 copies/ml.

Sociodemographic characteristics

Data on socio-demographic characteristics of participants is shown in Table 2. In terms of civil status, cases were more likely to be single or divorced (22.6% vs. 11.2% and 28.4% vs. 20.4%, respectively; p = 0.006). Ethnicity, religion or education level did not differ between groups, nor did number or type of languages spoken.

Table 2

Comparison of sociodemographic characteristics of study participants on ART with lack of virological suppression and with undetectable viral load.

	Unsuppressed VL (>1000 copies/ml; n = 155)	Undetectable VL (<150 copies/ml; n = 152)	Odds ratio (95% CI)	p-value
Civil status				0.006
Married	52 (33.5)	70 (46.1)	1.00
Single	35 (22.6)	17 (11.2)	2.77 (1.40–5.48)
Divorced	44 (28.4)	31 (20.4)	1.91 (1.07–3.42)
Widowed	24 (15.5)	34 (22.4)	0.95 (0.50–1.79)
Ethnicity				0.492
Oromo	78 (50.3)	67 (44.1)	1.00
Amhara	48 (31.0)	56 (36.8)	0.74 (0.44–1.22)
Other	29 (18.7)	29 (19.1)	0.86 (0.47–1.58)
Number of languages spoken (median, IQR)	2 (1–2)	2 (1–2)		0.704
Religion				0.734
Orthodox	113 (72.9)	106 (69.7)	1.00
Protestant	28 (18.1)	33 (21.7)	0.80 (0.45–1.41)
Muslim	13 (8.4)	13 (8.6)	0.94 (0.42–2.12)
Other	1 (0.6)	0	N/A
Education				0.959
No education	31 (20.0)	34 (22.4)	1.00
Primary (1–8)	71 (45.8)	66 (43.3)	1.18 (0.65–2.13)
Secondary (9–12)	39 (25.2)	38 (25.0)	1.13 (0.58–2.18)
Tertiary†	14 (9.0)	14 (9.2)	1.10 (0.45–2.66)
Employment status				0.001
Formal employment	36 (23.3)	50 (32.9)	1.00
Self-employed	35 (22.6)	31 (20.4)	1.57 (0.82–2.99)
Daily labor	40 (25.8)	21 (13.8)	2.65 (1.34–5.22)
Housewife	14 (9.0)	28 (18.4)	0.69 (0.32–1.50)
Student	17 (11.0)	4 (2.6)	5.90 (1.83–19.0)
Unemployed‡	13 (8.4)	18 (11.8)	1.00 (0.44–2.31)
Job security				0.057
Seldom or never concerned	123 (79.4)	133 (87.5)	1.00
Regularly concerned	32 (20.6)	19 (12.5)	1.82 (0.98–3.38)
Work type§				0.013
No work	31 (20.0)	31 (20.4)	1.00
Agriculture	10 (6.5)	8 (5.3)	1.23 (0.44–3.59)
Transportation	13 (8.4)	4 (2.6)	3.25 (0.95–11.1)
Retail/petty trade	39 (25.2)	34 (22.4)	1.15 (0.58–2.26)
Public office/education	3 (1.9)	9 (5.9)	0.33 (0.08–1.35)
Security/military	9 (5.8)	8 (5.3)	1.13 (0.38–3.30)
Construction	24 (15.5)	9 (5.9)	2.67 (1.07–6.65)
Housework/cleaning	14 (9.0)	24 (15.8)	0.58 (0.26–1.33)
Industry/skilled labor	6 (3.9)	11 (7.2)	0.55 (0.18–1.66)
Other professions¶	6 (3.9)	14 (9.9)	0.43 (0.15–1.26)
Job Location				0.021
Within residential district	123 (79.4)	138 (90.8)	1.00
Single location outside residential district	15 (9.7)	8 (11.4)	2.01 (0.86–5.13)
Multiple locations outside residential district	17 (11.0)	6 (3.9)	3.18 (1.22–8.32)
Household
Job commute				0.030
Home every day	137 (88.4)	145 (95.4)	1.00
Home less often	18 (11.6)	7 (4.6)	2.72 (1.10–6.72)
Monthly household income				0.002
<35 USD	100 (64.5)	71 (46.7)	2.07 (1.31–3.28)
≥35 USD	55 (35.5)	81 (53.3)	1.00
Residence ownership				0.154
Owned	43 (27.7)	46 (30.3)	1.00
Rented	81 (52.3)	88 (57.9)	0.99 (0.59–1.65)
Owned by family/others	31 (20.0)	18 (11.8)	1.84 (0.90–3.76)
Number of rooms (median, IQR)	2 (1–3)	2 (1–2)		0.373
Household members (median, IQR)	3 (2–4)	3 (2–4)		0.785
Number of children (median, IQR)	2 (0–3)	2 (1–3)		0.188
Residence in rural area				0.637
Yes	9 (5.8)	7 (4.6)	1.28 (0.46–3.52)
No	146 (94.2)	145 (95.4)	1.00
Urban wealth quintile††				0.003
1st (poorest)	16 (11.0)	7 (4.8)	3.62 (1.30–10.1)
2nd	33 (22.6)	25 (17.2)	2.09 (1.01–4.33)
3rd	54 (37.0)	38 (26.2)	2.25 (1.17–4.35)
4th	19 (13.0)	37 (25.5)	0.81 (0.38–1.73)
5th (richest)	24 (16.4)	38 (26.2)	1.00
Lower three urban wealth quintiles	103 (70.5)	70 (48.3)	2.57 (1.58–4.16)	<0.001

Binominal logistic regression for categorical variables. Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. Data reported in absolute number and percentage (in brackets) and unadjusted odds ratios, unless otherwise specified. VL: viral load; IQR: Interquartile range; USD: United States Dollar.

† Including Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) and university degrees

‡ Including unpaid volunteers work and pension/retirement

§ Including previous work for people currently unemployed

¶ Commercial sex work (n = 2), finance (n = 3), healthcare (n = 3), server (n = 5), (assistant) chef (n = 4), cosmetics and hair-care (n = 2)

†† Sub analysis on urban study population: cases (n = 146) and controls (n = 145)

With regard to employment status, higher proportions of cases than controls were daily laborers or students (25.8% vs. 13.8% and 11.0% vs. 2.6%, respectively; p = 0.001). Construction work (15.5% vs. 5.9%; p = 0.013), working in multiple locations outside residential district (11.0% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.021) and travelling home from workplace less frequently than daily (11.6% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.030) was more commonly reported among cases than controls.

Self-reported household income was lower among cases, with 64.5% reporting <35 USD (United States Dollar) per month (64.5% vs. 46.7%; p = 0.002). Urban wealth quintiles (i.e. wealth distribution divided into fifths from poorest to richest) were calculated for non-rural residents (94.8% of participants). The lower three quintiles were overrepresented among cases as compared to controls (70.5% vs. 49.0%; p<0.001); while the greatest difference was observed among the lowest quintile (11.0% vs 4.8%; p = 0.003).

Physical, mental and sexual health characteristics

The majority of participants rated their state of wellbeing as excellent, with no period of prolonged (≥4 days) illness during the preceding month (Table 3). However, worse perceived wellbeing (p<0.001) and self-reported illness lasting >3 days (14.8% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.004) was more common among cases than controls. At least one episode of anhedonia or depressed mood within a 2-week period was reported among 18 cases and 13 controls (11.6% vs. 8.7%; p = 0.375).

Table 3

Comparison of physical, mental and sexual health, and substance use of study participants on ART with lack of virological suppression and with undetectable viral load.

	Unsuppressed VL (>1000 copies/ml; n = 155)	Undetectable VL (<150 copies/ml; n = 152)	Odds ratio (95% CI)	p-value
Self-rated wellbeing				<0.001
Excellent	102 (65.8)	131 (86.2)	1.00
Suboptimal	31 (20.0)	12 (7.9)	3.32 (1.62–6.78)
Poor	20 (12.9)	7 (4.7)	3.14 (1.62–6.78)
Self-reported illness last month				0.004
0–3 days	132 (85.2)	145 (95.4)	1.00
≥4 days	23 (14.8)	7 (4.6)	3.61 (1.50–8.69)
Depressive symptoms (PHQ-2 score)				0.375
0	137 (88.4)	136 (91.3)	1.00
≥1	18 (11.6)	13 (8.7)	1.41 (0.66–2.98)
Major depressive disorder (PHQ-9 score ≥8; n = 5 [PHQ-2 score ≥3])	2 (1.3)	1 (0.6)
Sexual health
Number of lifetime sexual partners				0.020
1–5	91 (58.7)	111 (73.0)	1.00
6–10	12 (7.7)	7 (4.6)	2.09 (0.79–5.53)
>10	31 (20.0)	27 (17.8)	1.40 (0.78–2.52)
Never sexually active	21 (13.5)	7 (4.6)	3.66 (1.49–8.99)
Age at sexual debut (median, IQR)	18 (15.5–20)	18 (15–20)		0.724
History of STI†				0.444
Yes	34 (21.9)	39 (27.4)	0.81 (0.48–1.38)
No	121 (78.1)	113 (72.6)	1.00
Sexually active, last month				0.028
Yes	27 (17.4)	47 (25.7)	0.54 (0.31–0.94)
No	128 (82.6)	105 (74.3)	1.00
>1 sexual partner, last month	n = 27	n = 47	N/A
Yes	2 (7.4)	0
No	25 (92.6)	47 (100)
Discordant partner, last month	n = 27	n = 47		0.207
Yes	8 (29.7)	14 (29.8)	1.00
No	13 (48.1)	26 (55.3)	1.14 (0.38–3.41)
Unknown	6 (22.2)	7 (14.9)	0.57 (0.14–2.38)
Condom use, last month	n = 27	n = 47		0.283
Always	14 (51.9)	28 (59.6)	1.00
Less often	13 (48.1)	19 (40.4)	1.71 (0.64–4.53)
HIV disclosure to partner, last month	n = 27	n = 47		0.275
Yes	24 (88.9)	45 (95.7)	1.00
No	3 (11.1)	2 (4.3)	2.81 (0.44–18.0)
Substance use
Alcohol consumption				0.721
Less than once a year	100 (64.5)	105 (69.1)	1.00
Once a month or less	34 (21.9)	32 (20.1)	1.12 (0.64–1.94)
2–4 times a month	11 (7.1)	9 (6.0)	1.28 (0.51–3.23)
2 or more times a week	10 (6.5)	6 (4.0)	1.75 (0.61–4.99)
Hazardous drinking (FAST Score)				0.006
Yes (≥3)	22 (14.2)	7 (4.6)	3.43 (1.42–8.28)
No (<3)	133 (85.8)	145 (93.4)	1.00
Harmful alcohol use (n = 29 [FAST score ≥3]; AUDIT score ≥8)	9 (5.8)	3 (2.0)	3.06 (0.81–11.5)	0.098
Regular Khat use‡				0.030
Yes	18 (11.6)	7 (4.6)	2.72 (1.10–6.72)
No	137 (88.4)	145 (95.4)	1.00

Binominal logistic regression for categorical variables. Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. Data reported in absolute number and percentage (in brackets) and unadjusted odds ratios, unless otherwise specified. VL: viral load; IQR: Interquartile range; PHQ: Patient Health Questionnaire; STI: Sexually Transmitted Infection; FAST: Fast Alcohol Screening Test; AUDIT: Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test.

† History of symptoms of gonorrhea-like discharge, chancre-like lesion and/or genital itchiness

‡ An amphetamine-like plant substance ingested through chewing. Regular defined as on consumption at repeated occasions within the last year

Twenty-nine participants reported that they had never had a sexual contact (21 cases, 7 controls). The median age of these persons was 18 years (IQR 17.3–19.0), and all of them had acquired HIV vertically. For sexually active persons, no statistically significant association between VL category and number of lifetime sexual partners, age at sexual debut and history of sexually transmitted infections was observed. The proportion of persons reporting sexual activity during the recent month was lower among cases than controls (17.4% vs. 25.7%; p = 0.028). Among these, there was no significant difference in terms of rates of discordant partners, condom use or disclosure to partner.

Although alcohol consumption was reported in similar proportions of cases and controls (35.5% vs. 30.9%; p = 0.721), hazardous alcohol use was more common among cases (FAST score ≥3; 14.2% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.006). Further assessment using the AUDIT score did not show significant differences with regard to harmful alcohol use and VL category (AUDIT score ≥8; 5.8% vs. 2.0% in cases and controls, respectively; p = 0.098). Furthermore, khat use was more commonly reported among cases (11.6% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.030).

Factors associated with VL>1000 copies/ml in multivariable analysis

Four variables were found to be associated with VL>1000 copies/ml (p<0.05) in multivariable analysis (Table 4) but were not significant after Holm-Šídák correction (daily labor, monthly household income <35 USD, pre-ART CD4 cell count and hazardous alcohol use). After correction for multiple comparisons, younger age (aOR 0.94 [per year], 95% CI 0.91–0.98; p = 0.011); having longer ART duration (aOR [per year] 1.19, 95% CI 1.07–1.33; p = 0.020); working at multiple locations outside residential district (aOR 5.66, 95% CI 1.67–19.2; p = 0.030); reporting suboptimal (aOR 3.83, 95% CI 1.33–10.2; p = 0.048) or poor self-perceived wellbeing (aOR 9.75, 95% CI 2.85–33.4; p = 0.012); and belonging to a lower urban wealth quintile (aOR 2.98, 95% CI 1.49–5.94; p = 0.016) remained independently associated with high VL.

Table 4

Factors associated with lack of viral suppression among urban study participants, Adama Region, Ethiopia.

	Crude Odds Ratio (95% CI)	Univariate p-value	Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)	Multivariable p-value	Adjusted p-value§
Age (years)	0.97 (0.95–0.99)	0.004	0.94 (0.91–0.98)	0.001	0.011
Gender		0.005		0.058
Male	1.94 (1.22–3.10)		2.15 (0.97–4.75)
Female	1.00		1.00
Pre-ART CD4 count (10−1 cells/mm3)†	0.98 (0.97–1.00)	0.009	0.98 (0.96–1.00)	0.033
Duration of ART (years)	1.07 (1.00–1.14)	0.007	1.19 (1.07–1.33)	0.002	0.020
ART regimen‡		0.007		0.139
First-line	1.00		1.00
Second-line	6.17 (1.77–21.3)		3.33 (0.68–16.4)
Job location		0.021		0.009
Within residential district	1.00		1.00	Ref
Single location outside residential district	2.01 (0.86–5.13)		2.50 (0.77–8.16)	0.128
Multiple locations outside residential district	3.18 (1.22–8.32)		6.27 (1.82–21.6)	0.004	0.032
Employment status		0.001		0.375
Formal employment	1.00		1.00	Ref
Self-employed	1.57 (0.82–2.99)		1.74 (0.70–4.33)	0.236
Daily labor	2.65 (1.34–5.22)		2.97 (1.08–8.16)	0.035
Housewife	0.69 (0.32–1.50)		1.24 (0.38–4.02)	0.720
Student	5.90 (1.83–19.0)		1.15 (0.20–6.72)	0.873
Unemployed	1.00 (0.44–2.31)		1.12 (0.37–3.88)	0.763
Monthly household income		0.002		0.024
≥35 USD	1.00		1.00
<35 USD	2.07 (1.31–3.28)		2.33 (1.12–4.84)
Urban wealth quintile		<0.001		0.002	0.016
4th-5th (wealthiest)	1.00		1.00
1st-3rd (poorest)	2.57 (1.58–4.16)		2.98 (1.49–5.94)
Wellbeing		<0.001		<0.001
Excellent	1.00		1.00	Ref
Suboptimal	3.32 (1.62–6.78)		3.83 (1.44–10.2)	0.007	0.048
Poor	3.14 (1.62–6.78)		9.75 (2.85–33.4)	<0.001	0.012
Hazardous alcohol use (FAST score)		0.006		0.045
No (<3)	1.00		1.00
Yes (≥3)	3.43 (1.42–8.28)		3.60 (1.03–12.6)
Residence ownership		0.154		0.430
Owned	1.00		1.00
Rented	0.99 (0.59–1.65)		0.76 (0.35–1.67)	0.494
Owned by family/others	1.84 (0.90–3.76)		0.46(0.14–1.48)	0.195

Multivariable logistic regression model of variables associated with high viral load results, showing remaining variables with a p-value <0.15. Data reported in crude and adjusted odds ratios, univariate and multivariable p-values and significance after Holm-Šídák correction. Due to the inclusion of urban wealth quintiles in the model, only urban residents (n = 291) were considered. Due to missing values, 260 (89.7%) study participants were included in the model. In stepwise backwards elimination protocol the following variables were excluded from the model: Transfer-in to current ART clinic; civil status; job security; job commute; number of children; Self-reported illness (last month); ART clinic location; regular khat use. CD4: CD4 cell count; USD: United States Dollar; FAST: Fast Alcohol Screening Test.

† Missing values n = 30

‡ Missing values n = 1

§ Significant adjusted p-values after Holm-Šídák correction (marked in bold)

Gender-specific factors associated with VL>1000 copies/ml

Although the design of our study was not powered for sub-group analysis, univariate analysis of the data disaggregated by gender showed several associations with virological outcome during ART (S2–S4 Tables).

Among both men and women, VL>1000 copies/ml was associated with lower relative wealth (71.2% vs. 46.5%; p = 0.011 and 70.0% vs. 50.0%; p = 0.007, respectively), whereas geographic work mobility did not show such association in gender-specific analysis. Younger age was associated with unsuppressed viral load only among men (38.0 vs. 47.0 years; p<0.001), while poor reported well-being showed such an association only among women (21.7% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.004).

In addition, the following variables were found to be more common in cases than controls among men only: hazardous alcohol drinking (FAST score≥3; 23.6% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.042); single (33.3% vs. 19.1%; p = 0.022) or divorced (23.6% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.012) civil status; lack of ownership or rental of household (23.6% vs. 6.4%; p = 0.006); having fewer children (median 1 vs. 2; p = 0.005); and younger age at sexual debut (median 18 vs. 20 years; p = 0.040).

Furthermore, as compared to male controls, male cases were less likely to report multiple lifetime sex partners (n>10; 15.3% vs. 44.7%; p = 0.003), previous sexually transmitted infection (22.2% vs. 57.4%; p<0.001), and recent sexual activity (15.5% vs. 39.1%; p = 0.008), respectively. Among women, report of multiple lifetime sexual partners (24.1% vs. 5.7%; p<0.001) and longer ART duration (9.31 vs. 7.76 years; p = 0.003) was more common among cases than controls.

Discussion

In this case-control study conducted at Ethiopian ART clinics, lack of virological suppression during ART was independently associated with two socio-economic factors: geographic work mobility and lower relative wealth in urban residents.

In high-income countries, indicators of socio-economic disadvantage have been associated with inadequate virological suppression during ART. Detectable VL was more common among ART recipients in the United Kingdom with unstable housing, non-university education, unemployment and financial hardship [15]. Other social and structural factors, such as homelessness, injection drug use and lack of social support, have also been associated with viremia during ART [16, 17].

Although rates of virological suppression have been reported to be similar in cohorts receiving ART in high- and low-income countries [39], our findings suggest that socio-economic conditions influence virological treatment response in low-income countries. Irregular or interrupted therapy has been linked to multiple geographical, social and economic factors in resource-constrained settings [40]. Indirect costs related to ART, such as travel costs and absence from work, are examples of such barriers to adherence [41]. Similar associations between socio-economic vulnerability and worse treatment outcomes have been reported for tuberculosis (including multi-drug resistant tuberculosis) and malaria [42-45].

Data on associations between socio-economic factors and virological ART outcomes from sub-Saharan Africa is limited, and findings are discordant [46]. While no clear association between household income and virological outcomes during ART was reported in a study from South Africa, higher income was associated with virological treatment failure in a recent study from Uganda [47, 48]. In contrast, a large study conducted in Uganda and Kenya 2013–2014 showed an association between lower household income and worse virological outcomes [49].

In our study we used both a direct estimate of household income and an established tool for assessment of relative wealth (EquityTool) to characterize economic status [33]. Defining relevant cut-offs for household income requires consideration of both dynamic urban-rural as well as country-specific conditions. This holds especially true for Ethiopia which has the fastest growing economy in sub-Saharan Africa, but where around 24% of the population still live in poverty [50]. We used a monthly household income of 35 USD as a threshold in our study, corresponding to the population living on less than 1.25 USD per day [51].

To our knowledge, this is the first study that employs a simplified and comprehensive tool for assessment of relative wealth in relation to virological outcome in the ART “treat-all” era. In line with a previous Ethiopian study showing an association between low household income and treatment adherence [52], we found that persons with lower relative wealth were more likely to have lack of virological suppression during ART. We further showed relative wealth to be more strongly associated with virological outcomes than household income alone.

Besides low relative wealth, incomplete virological suppression was associated with work in multiple locations outside place of residence. Although the underlying mechanisms could not be elucidated with our study design, it is possible that the requirements of current ART programs in Ethiopia constitute an obstacle for adherence for persons with mobile work.

Migrant and mobile populations are recognized to be at increased risk of HIV acquisition [53-58]. Linkage and retention in care is also often inadequate in such populations [59]. In agreement with this, studies from different parts of sub-Saharan Africa have shown that non-residents on ART are less likely to have virological suppression than residents [60, 61].

Although our study did not specifically target migrants, the finding of lower rates of virological suppression in mobile workers provides further support for the role of mobility for ART outcomes reported by other researchers [41]. It is likely that inadequate adherence is a common underlying factor in these cases. Socio-economically vulnerable persons and mobile workers could constitute a reservoir for perpetuation of the HIV epidemic in high-burden communities. With increasing access to ART but inadequate virological suppression in these populations, it is also possible that accumulation of drug-resistant viruses can occur, with risk of onwards transmission [62]. Apart from surveillance, targeted interventions should be considered to improve retention in care, adherence and virological outcomes in individuals with socio-economic risk factors [7, 63]. Alternative and more flexible models for drug dispensing could be effective interventions and are currently under investigation [64, 65].

Our overall study population corresponds well with recent demographic HIV data in urban parts of Ethiopia [12, 13, 19, 66]. In agreement with other reports, we found younger age and worse perceived health to be independently associated with lack of virological suppression [9–11, 67, 68]. Interestingly, we did not find an association between gender and lack of virological suppression in multivariable analysis, as previously reported [10, 11, 67]. Gender-specific analysis showed that several socio-economic and behavioral variables, including high alcohol consumption, were associated with unsuppressed VL in men. Furthermore, significantly higher proportions of men than women had mobile work in multiple locations overall (16.0% vs. 2.1%; p<0.001). These findings suggest that the higher rates of virological failure previously observed among men might at least partially be explained by underlying socio-economic conditions [8, 46].

In the overall study population, incomplete virological suppression was not independently associated with factors indicating sexual risk behavior or substance use. We further assessed mental health status, using the PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 instruments. Although these tools have been validated in Ethiopia and East Africa, we found unexpectedly low rates of symptoms of depressive disorder in our population compared to previous studies among PLHIV in this region [34, 69, 70]. It is possible that the cut-off value (≥3) used in the PHQ-2 was too insensitive for detecting major depressive disorder in this study population.

This study has certain limitations. Since the majority of participants were urban residents, the associations found might not be translated to rural inhabitants. While the numbers of female commercial sex workers and male transport workers in our uptake area are higher than in other parts of Ethiopia, the total number of study participant belonging to key populations was small [22, 23]. This could explain the relatively low number of persons reporting high-risk behavior. Furthermore, selection bias of included participants cannot be excluded, both with regard to participants who could not be reached and for those who declined participation. In addition, the study design did not allow estimation of the proportion of all persons starting ART at the study clinics who remained in care, neither of those who had received routine VL testing according to the Ethiopian guidelines. Since no previous studies with a similar objective had been performed in the area, rates of several investigated variables were unknown and, in several instances, found to be lower than expected. It is therefore possible that the study was underpowered for certain potential associations, in particular with regard to risk behavior.

Conclusion

In this case-control study of ART recipients in Ethiopia, low relative wealth and geographic work mobility were associated with lack of virological suppression. These findings imply that increased attention to socio-economic factors is required in order to obtain better and durable outcomes of ART programmes in sub-Saharan Africa.

Comparison of participants who could be reached and included, with eligible participants who could not be reached.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Gender-aggregated univariate data of cases and controls.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

19 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-07483

Socio-economic condition and lack of virological suppression among adults and adolescents receiving antiretroviral therapy in Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Plymoth,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 01 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jianhong Zhou

Associate Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I read with interest this manuscript.

I think that is well wrote and with a good idea research from an important setting (Ethiopia)

Only some suggestions:

1. Introduction: line 44 is the definition of social determinants of health (cite Marmot et al on this issue)

join line 55-56; delete line 71-72

2. Methods: write the time of the study.

3. Results:well wrote. Delete line189

4. Discussion: well wrote. Compare with other study of low setting (ec cite Prevalence and Predictors of Malaria in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infected Patients in Beira, Mozambique. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(9):2032. Published 2018 Sep 17 and The At Risk Child Clinic (ARCC): 3 Years of Health Activities in Support of the Most Vulnerable Children in Beira, Mozambique. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(7):1350. Published 2018 Jun 27. doi:10.3390/ijerph15071350) who underline how women and child are the most vulenrable group and the comorbidity and co-infection with Malaria can be devasting in people with HIV.

Furhermore, as for HIV also TB responde to social determinats of health. (doi:10.1016/j.tube.2017.01.002 and doi:10.1186/s13104-018-3209-9)

5. Conclusion: improve with a advocy that only pharmacological approuch is not sufficient to control burden of HIV

6. Table and statistical analysis are very well done. Congratulations

Reviewer #2: Introduction

Since such factors might be associated

66 with risk of HIV transmission, we also investigated whether lack of virological

67 suppression during ART is associated with high-risk sexual behaviour.

Reviewer comments

Yes, socioeconomic factors might be associated with HIV transmission, but I don’t see why you use that fact to support your secondary aim, you cannot use that fact to motivate your reason for investigating the association between virological suppression during ART and high-risk behaviour (you may look for a reference that supports this association), rather simply state that: A secondary aim of our study was to investigate the association between virological suppression and high-risk sexual behaviour.

For this purpose,

68 we performed a case-control study of ART recipients at Ethiopian public health

69 facilities, comparing persons with VL>1000 copies/ml to those with virological

70 suppression.

Reviewer comments

To me, that statement makes it as if you are conducting a solely comparative study, it completely drifts away from your title and the introduction. Nowhere in the introduction do you talk about virologically suppressed Vs non-suppressed. Besides the fact that you are focusing attention on the association between lack of virological suppression and socioeconomic condition, the comparative factor strengthens your study even further. If you are comparing, this aspect of your study must “come out” in the study title, introduction and the aims. WHY ARE YOU COMPARING THE VIROLOGICALLY SUPPRESSED VS. NON SUPPRESSED? To have a referral point? Then say so. WOULD YOU HAVE FOUND DIFFERENT RESULTS IF YOU HAD NOT COMPARED, i.e., if you had only sought for associations between socioeconomic conditions and those with VL>1000 copies/ml?

Alternatively, your sentence could read: In order to understand the socioeconomic conditions impacting on virological suppression, we performed a case-control study of ART recipients at Ethiopian public health facilities, comparing persons with VL>1000 copies/ml to those with virological suppression.

Methods, results and ethical considerations

Reviewer comments

Comprehensive and well-articulated.

Discussion

Reviewer comments

The discussion is adequate. However, you fail to compare your findings with other studies that have also ‘compared’ virologically suppressed vs. non-suppressed.

General comments

All in all, this is a good study, and I praise you for the good work.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Francesco Di Gennaro

Reviewer #2: Yes: Smart Z Mabweazara

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

6 Oct 2020

Dear Dr. Jianhong Zhou, Dr. Francesco Di Gennaro and Dr. Smart Z Mabweazara,

We appreciate your review of our manuscript and the comments provided. We have addressed these comments point by point. For most comments, we have followed the advice given by the reviewers. However, for certain comments we prefer to keep the original formulations in the submitted manuscript, and we have explained these reasons in the replies inserted in the attached rebuttal letter.

We hope that our revision of the manuscript will be to your satisfaction, as well as the replies provided, and that the manuscript will meet criteria for publication in PLOS One.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Plymoth and Per Björkman

Submitted filename: Martin Plymoth rebuttal letter1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-07483R1

Socio-economic condition and lack of virological suppression among adults and adolescents receiving antiretroviral therapy in Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Plymoth,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 02 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kennedy Otwombe

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors improve their manuscript that now can be publish

I appreciate the research question and also the setting of study

Reviewer #3: Pages 15-18 mentions several significant p-values, yet no mention applying Holm-Sidak. Exactly how were these multiple p-values addressed to minimize Type 1 error?

Table 4 p value are those post-Holm Sidak? Better to see the original p-values apply the Holm-Sidak, then show the outcome.

Other tables show the p-values as well, we they not included in the Holm-Sidak correction?

The Holm-Sidak application confuses. Please clarify…

There are still problems with the abbreviations, where a number of them were given at first mention without presenting the meaning.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

23 Nov 2020

Please se attached document "rebuttal letter/response to reviewers"

Submitted filename: Martin Plymoth rebuttal letter_201120.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Dec 2020

Socio-economic condition and lack of virological suppression among adults and adolescents receiving antiretroviral therapy in Ethiopia

PONE-D-20-07483R2

Dear Dr. Plymoth,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kennedy Otwombe

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

NA

Reviewers' comments:

7 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-07483R2

Socio-economic condition and lack of virological suppression among adults and adolescents receiving antiretroviral therapy in Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Plymoth:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kennedy Otwombe

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE