4.4 Article

Failure of immunologic criteria to appropriately identify antiretroviral treatment failure in Uganda

Journal

AIDS
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 697-700

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283262a78

Keywords

antiretroviral therapy; HIV/AIDS; immunologic monitoring

Funding

  1. United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)
  2. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [N01-CO-12400]
  3. Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Most antiretroviral treatment program in resource-limited settings use immunologic or clinical monitoring to measure response to therapy and to decide when to change to a second-line regimen. Our objective was to evaluate immunologic failure criteria against gold standard virologic monitoring. Design: Observational cohort. Methods: Participants enrolled in an antiretroviral treatment program in rural Uganda who had at least 6 months of follow-up were included in this analysis. Immunologic monitoring was performed by CD4 cell counts every 3 months during the first year, and every 6 months thereafter. HIV-1 viral loads were performed every 6 months. Results: A total of 1133 participants enrolled in the Rakai Health Sciences Program antiretroviral treatment program between June 2004 and September 2007 were followed for Lip to 44.4 months (median follow-up 20.2 months; IQR 12.4-29.5 months). WHO immunologic failure criteria were reached by 125 (11.0%) participants. A virologic failure endpoint defined as HIV-1 viral load more than 400 copies/ml on two measurements was reached by 112 participants (9.9%). Only 26 participants (2.3%) experienced both an immunologic and virologic failure endpoint (2 viral load > 400 copies/ml) during follow-up. Conclusion: immunologic failure criteria performed poorly in our setting and would have resulted in a substantial proportion of participants with suppressed HIV-1 viral load being switched unnecessarily. These criteria also lacked sensitivity to identify participants failing virologically. Periodic viral load measurements may be a better marker for treatment failure in our setting. (C) 2009 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available