Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24326599›Full record

ArticleJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2014

Tracing of patients lost to follow-up and HIV transmission: mathematical modeling study based on 2 large ART programs in Malawi.

Janne Estill, Hannock Tweya, Matthias Egger, Gilles Wandeler, Caryl Feldacker, Leigh F Johnson, Nello Blaser, Luisa Salazar Vizcaya, Sam Phiri, Olivia Keiser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Hypothetical Strategies to Enhance Retention in Care within HIV Treatment Programs in East Africa.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2015
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Janne Estill*Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; †The International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Paris, France; ‡Lighthouse Trust, Lilongwe, Malawi; §Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; ‖Department of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland; ¶Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Dakar, Dakar, Senegal; #International Training and Education Center for Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Hannock Tweya
Matthias Egger
Gilles Wandeler
Caryl Feldacker
Leigh F Johnson
Nello Blaser
Luisa Salazar Vizcaya
Sam Phiri
Olivia Keiser

Funding

Observational Antiretroviral Studies In Southern Africa (OASIS) CollaborationU01AI069924 · NIAID · UNIVERSITAT BERN · PI Cleophas Chimbetete, Mary-Ann Davies · 2006 to 2026
$55.9M
NIAID NIH HHS 5U01-AI069924NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI069924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTreatment as prevention depends on retaining HIV-infected patients in care. We investigated the effect on HIV transmission of bringing patients lost to follow-up (LTFU) back into care.

designMathematical model.

methodsStochastic mathematical model of cohorts of 1000 HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy, based on the data from 2 clinics in Lilongwe, Malawi. We calculated cohort viral load (sum of individual mean viral loads each year) and used a mathematical relationship between viral load and transmission probability to estimate the number of new HIV infections. We simulated 4 scenarios: "no LTFU" (all patients stay in care), "no tracing" (patients LTFU are not traced), "immediate tracing" (after missed clinic appointment), and "delayed tracing" (after 6 months).

resultsAbout 440 of 1000 patients were LTFU over 5 years. Cohort viral loads (million copies/mL per 1000 patients) were 3.7 [95% prediction interval (PrI), 2.9-4.9] for no LTFU, 8.6 (95% PrI, 7.3-10.0) for no tracing, 7.7 (95% PrI, 6.2-9.1) for immediate, and 8.0 (95% PrI, 6.7-9.5) for delayed tracing. Comparing no LTFU with no tracing, the number of new infections increased from 33 (95% PrI, 29-38) to 54 (95% PrI, 47-60) per 1000 patients. Immediate tracing prevented 3.6 (95% PrI, -3.3 to 12.8) and delayed tracing 2.5 (95% PrI, -5.8 to 11.1) new infections per 1000. Immediate tracing was more efficient than delayed tracing: to 116 and 142 tracing efforts, respectively, were needed prevent 1 new infection.

conclusionsTracing of patients LTFU enhances the preventive effect of antiretroviral therapy, but the number of transmissions prevented is small.

Indexed as

Lost to Follow-UpAdolescentAdultAgedAnti-Retroviral AgentsAntiretroviral Therapy, Highly ActiveDisease Transmission, InfectiousFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMalawiMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalViral LoadYoung AdultAnti-Retroviral Agents

Identifiers

PMID24326599
PMCPMC3999218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.