ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Real-world performance of point-of-care vs. standard-of-care HIV viral load testing in western Kenya: Secondary analysis of Opt4Kids and Opt4Mamas studies.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Routine HIV viral load testing is important for evaluating HIV treatment outcomes, but conventional viral load testing has many barriers including expensive laboratory equipment and lengthy results return times to patients. A point-of-care viral load testing technology, such as GeneXpert HIV-1 quantification assay, could reduce these barriers by decreasing cost and turnaround time, however real-world performance is limited. We conducted a secondary analysis using 900 samples collected from participants in two studies to examine the performance of GeneXpert as point-of-care viral load compared to standard-of-care testing (which was conducted with two centralized laboratories using traditional HIV-1 RNA PCR quantification assays). The two studies, Opt4Kids (n = 704 participants) and Opt4Mamas (n = 820 participants), were conducted in western Kenya from 2019-2021 to evaluate the effectiveness of a combined intervention strategy, which included point-of-care viral load testing. Paired viral load results were compared using four different thresholds for virological non-suppression, namely ≥50, ≥200, ≥400, ≥1000 copies/ml. At a threshold of ≥1000 copies/mL, paired samples collected on the same day: demonstrated sensitivities of 90.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68.3, 98.8) and 66.7% (9.4, 99.2), specificities of 98.4% (95.5, 99.7) and 100% (96.5, 100), and percent agreements of 97.7% (94.6, 99.2) and 99.1% (95.0, 100) in Opt4Kids and Opt4Mamas studies, respectively. When lower viral load thresholds were used and the paired samples were collected an increasing number of days apart, sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement generally decreased. While specificity and percent agreement were uniformly high, sensitivity was lower than expected. Non-specificity of the standard of care testing may have been responsible for the sensitivity values. Nonetheless, our results demonstrate that GeneXpert may be used reliably to monitor HIV treatment in low- and middle- income countries to attain UNAID's 95-95-95 HIV goals.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.