Dataset Information

Use of viral load to improve survey estimates of known HIV-positive status and antiretroviral treatment coverage.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare alternative methods of adjusting self-reported knowledge of HIV-positive status and antiretroviral (ARV) therapy use based on undetectable viral load (UVL) and ARV detection in blood.

Design

Post hoc analysis of nationally representative household survey to compare alternative biomarker-based adjustments to population HIV indicators.

Methods

We reclassified HIV-positive participants aged 15-64 years in the 2012 Kenya AIDS Indicator Survey (KAIS) who were unaware of their HIV-positive status by self-report as aware and on antiretroviral treatment if either ARVs were detected or viral load was undetectable (<550 copies/ml) on dried blood spots. We compared self-report to adjustments for ARV measurement, UVL, or both.

Results

Treatment coverage among all HIV-positive respondents increased from 31.8% for self-report to 42.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 37.4-47.8] based on ARV detection alone, to 42.8% (95% CI 37.9-47.8) when ARV-adjusted, 46.2% (95% CI 41.3-51.1) when UVL-adjusted and 48.8% (95% CI 43.9-53.8) when adjusted for either ARV or UVL. Awareness of positive status increased from 46.9% for self-report to 56.2% (95% CI 50.7-61.6) when ARV-adjusted, 57.5% (95% CI 51.9-63.0) when UVL-adjusted, and 59.8% (95% CI 54.2-65.1) when adjusted for either ARV or UVL.

Conclusion

Undetectable viral load, which is routinely measured in surveys, may be a useful adjunct or alternative to ARV detection for adjusting survey estimates of knowledge of HIV status and antiretroviral treatment coverage.

SUBMITTER: Young PW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8157159 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccurately identifying individuals who are on antiretroviral therapy (ART) is important to determine ART coverage and proportion on ART who are virally suppressed. ART is also included in recent infection testing algorithms used to estimate incidence. We compared estimates of ART coverage, viral load suppression rates and HIV incidence using ART self-report and detection of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs and we identified factors associated with discordance between the methods.MethodsCross-sectional population-based survey in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Individuals 15-59 years were eligible. Interviews included questions about ARV use. Rapid HIV testing was performed at the participants' home. Blood specimens were collected for ARV detection, LAg-Avidity HIV incidence testing and viral load quantification in HIV-positive individuals. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify socio-demographic covariates associated with discordance between self-reported ART and ARV detection.ResultsOf the 5649 individuals surveyed, 1423 were HIV-positive. Median age was 34 years and 76.3% were women. ART coverage was estimated at 51.4% (95%CI:48.5-54.3), 53.1% (95%CI:50.2-55.9) and 56.1% (95%CI:53.5-58.8) using self-reported ART, ARV detection and both methods combined (classified as ART exposed if ARV detected and/or ART reported) respectively. ART coverage estimates using the 3 methods were fairly similar within sex and age categories except in individuals aged 15-19 years: 33.3% (95%CI:23.3-45.2), 33.8% (95%CI:23.9-45.4%) and 44.3% (95%CI:39.3-46.7) using self-reported ART, ARV detection and both methods combined. Viral suppression below 1000cp/mL in individuals on ART was estimated at 89.8% (95%CI:87.3-91.9), 93.1% (95%CI:91.0-94.8) and 88.7% (95%CI:86.2-90.7) using self-reported ART, ARV detection and both methods combined respectively. HIV incidence was estimated at 1.4 (95%CI:0.8-2.0) new cases/100 person-years when employing no measure of ARV use, 1.1/100PY (95%CI:0.6-1.7) using self-reported ART, and 1.2/100PY (95%CI:0.7-1.7) using ARV detection. In multivariate analyses, individuals aged 15-19 years had a higher risk of discordance on measures of ARV exposure (aOR:9.4; 95%CI:3.9-22.8), while migrants had a lower risk (aOR:0.3; 95%CI:0.1-0.6).ConclusionsIn KwaZulu-Natal, the method of identifying ARV use had little impact on estimates of ART coverage, viral suppression rate and HIV incidence. However, discordant results were more common in younger individuals. This may skew estimates of ART coverage and viral suppression, particularly in adolescent surveys.

Project description:BACKGROUND:HIV incidence is the best measure of treatment-programme effectiveness, but its measurement is difficult and expensive. The concept of community viral load as a modifiable driver of new HIV infections has attracted substantial attention. We set out to compare several measures of community viral load and antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage as correlates of HIV incidence in high-risk populations. METHODS:We analysed data from a sample of people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men, who were participants of the baseline assessment of a cluster-randomised trial in progress across 22 cities in India (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01686750). We recruited the study population by use of respondent-driven sampling and did the baseline assessment at 27 community-based sites (12 for men who have sex with men and 15 for people who inject drugs). We estimated HIV incidence with a multiassay algorithm and calculated five community-based measures of HIV control: mean log10 HIV RNA in participants with HIV in a community either engaged in care (in-care viral load), aware of their status but not necessarily in care (aware viral load), or all HIV-positive individuals whether they were aware, in care, or not (population viral load); participants with HIV in a community with HIV RNA more than 150 copies per mL (prevalence of viraemia); and the proportion of participants with HIV who self-reported ART use in the previous 30 days (population ART coverage). All participants were tested for HIV, with additional testing in HIV-positive individuals. We assessed correlations between the measures and HIV incidence with Spearman correlation coefficients and linear regression analysis. FINDINGS:Between Oct 1, 2012, and Dec 19, 2013, we recruited 26,503 participants, 12,022 men who have sex with men and 14,481 people who inject drugs. Median incidence of HIV was 0·87% (IQR 0·40-1·17) in men who have sex with men and 1·43% (0·60-4·00) in people who inject drugs. Prevalence of viraemia was more strongly correlated with HIV incidence (correlation 0·81, 95% CI 0·62-0·91; p<0·0001) than all other measures, although correlation was significant with aware viral load (0·59, 0·27-0·79; p=0·001), population viral load (0·51, 0·16-0·74; p=0·007), and population ART coverage (-0·54, -0·76 to -0·20; p=0·004). In-care viral load was not correlated with HIV incidence (0·29, -0·10 to 0·60; p=0·14). With regression analysis, we estimated that to reduce HIV incidence by 1 percentage point in a community, prevalence of viraemia would need to be reduced by 4·34%, and ART use in HIV-positive individuals would need to increase by 19·5%. INTERPRETATION:Prevalence of viraemia had the strongest correlation with HIV incidence in this sample and might be a useful measure of the effectiveness of a treatment programme. FUNDING:US National Institutes of Health, Elton John AIDS Foundation.

Project description:ObjectivesSouth Africa has made remarkable progress in increasing the coverage of antiretroviral therapy (ART) among pregnant women; however, viral suppression among pregnant women receiving ART is reported to be low. Access to routine viral load testing is crucial to identify women with unsuppressed viral load early in pregnancy and to provide timely intervention to improve viral suppression. This study aimed to determine the coverage of maternal viral load monitoring nationally, focusing on viral load testing, documentation of viral load test results, and viral suppression (viral load < 50 copies/mL). At the time of this study, the first-line regimen for women initiating ART during pregnancy was non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NNRTI)-based regimen.MethodsBetween 1 October and 15 November 2019, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among 15- to 49-year-old pregnant women attending antenatal care in 1589 nationally representative public health facilities. Data on ART status, viral load testing and viral load test results were extracted from medical records. Logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with coverage of viral load testing.ResultsOf 8112 participants eligible for viral load testing, 81.7% received viral load testing, and 94.1% of the viral load test results were documented in the medical records. Of those who had viral load test results documented, 74.1% were virally suppressed. Women initiated on ART during pregnancy and who received ART for three months had lower coverage of viral load testing (73%) and viral suppression (56.8%) compared with women initiated on ART before pregnancy (82.8% and 76.1%, respectively). Initiating ART during pregnancy rather than before pregnancy was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving a viral load test during pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-1.8).ConclusionsViral load result documentation was high; viral load testing could be improved especially among women initiating ART during pregnancy. The low viral suppression among women who initiated ART during pregnancy despite receiving ART for three months highlights the importance of enhanced adherence counselling during pregnancy. Our finding supports the WHO recommendation that a Dolutegravir-containing regimen be the preferred regimen for women who are newly initiating ART during pregnancy for more rapid viral suppression.