A cluster randomized trial of routine HIV-1 viral load monitoring in Zambia: study design, implementation, and baseline cohort characteristics

John R Koethe, Andrew O Westfall, Dora K Luhanga, Gina M Clark, Jason D Goldman, Priscilla L Mulenga, Ronald A Cantrell, Benjamin H Chi, Isaac Zulu, Michael S Saag, Jeffrey S A Stringer, John R Koethe, Andrew O Westfall, Dora K Luhanga, Gina M Clark, Jason D Goldman, Priscilla L Mulenga, Ronald A Cantrell, Benjamin H Chi, Isaac Zulu, Michael S Saag, Jeffrey S A Stringer

Abstract

Background: The benefit of routine HIV-1 viral load (VL) monitoring of patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-constrained settings is uncertain because of the high costs associated with the test and the limited treatment options. We designed a cluster randomized controlled trial to compare the use of routine VL testing at ART-initiation and at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months, versus our local standard of care (which uses immunological and clinical criteria to diagnose treatment failure, with discretionary VL testing when the two do not agree).

Methodology: Dedicated study personnel were integrated into public-sector ART clinics. We collected participant information in a dedicated research database. Twelve ART clinics in Lusaka, Zambia constituted the units of randomization. Study clinics were stratified into pairs according to matching criteria (historical mortality rate, size, and duration of operation) to limit the effect of clustering, and independently randomized to the intervention and control arms. The study was powered to detect a 36% reduction in mortality at 18 months.

Principal findings: From December 2006 to May 2008, we completed enrollment of 1973 participants. Measured baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the study arms. Enrollment was staggered by clinic pair and truncated at two matched sites.

Conclusions: A large clinical trial of routing VL monitoring was successfully implemented in a dynamic and rapidly growing national ART program. Close collaboration with local health authorities and adequate reserve staff were critical to success. Randomized controlled trials such as this will likely prove valuable in determining long-term outcomes in resource-constrained settings.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00929604.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Design of the Viral Load…
Figure 1. Design of the Viral Load Study.
* Immune Reconstitution Syndrome (IRIS) is not considered evidence of clinical treatment failure. The assessment of whether a clinical event represents IRIS or a genuine incident opportunistic infection is determined locally by the clinician. Note: when clinical or immunologic criteria for therapeutic failure are met, a procedure for allocating ‘discretionary’ viral load testing is utilized. Any evident infections are investigated and treated. In cases of suspected immunologic treatment failure, the CD4+ lymphocyte count is repeated one month after treatment of infection and/or intensive adherence counseling. If the patient still meets criteria for therapeutic failure after adherence is judged to be excellent and (in cases of immunologic failure) after a repeat CD4+ lymphocyte count, HIV-1 viral load testing is performed for those patients meeting either clinical or immunologic criteria, but not both. Patients meeting both clinical and immunologic criteria for therapeutic failure are assumed to have virologic failure and the decision to change to ART regimen is made without viral load testing.
Figure 2. Detectable hazard ratio as a…
Figure 2. Detectable hazard ratio as a consequence of utilizing routine HIV-1 viral load monitoring at varying between-clinic coefficients of variation.
Calculation assumes a historical 18 month post-ART mortality rate of 15.6 per 100 years (140 patients remaining per clinic).
Figure 3. Participant screening and enrollment.
Figure 3. Participant screening and enrollment.
Figure 4. Participant accrual by clinic.
Figure 4. Participant accrual by clinic.
Superscript denotes matched clinic pairs. ‘Matero Ref.’ refers to Matero Reference clinic.

References

    1. Stringer JS, Zulu I, Levy J, Stringer EM, Mwango A, et al. Rapid scale-up of antiretroviral therapy at primary care sites in Zambia: feasibility and early outcomes. JAMA. 2006;296:782–793.
    1. Wools-Kaloustian K, Kimaiyo S, Diero L, Siika A, Sidle J, et al. Viability and effectiveness of large-scale HIV treatment initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa: experience from western Kenya. AIDS. 2006;20:41–48.
    1. Coetzee D, Hildebrand K, Boulle A, Maartens G, Louis F, et al. Outcomes after two years of providing antiretroviral treatment in Khayelitsha, South Africa. AIDS. 2004;18:887–895.
    1. Bussmann H, Wester CW, Ndwapi N, Grundmann N, Gaolathe T, et al. Five-year outcomes of initial patients treated in Botswana's National Antiretroviral Treatment Program. AIDS. 2008;22:2303–2311.
    1. Nash D, Katyal M, Brinkhof MW, Keiser O, May M, et al. Long-term immunologic response to antiretroviral therapy in low-income countries: a collaborative analysis of prospective studies. AIDS. 2008;22:2291–2302.
    1. World Health Organisation Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS United Nations Children's Fund. Towards universal access: scaling up priority HIV/AIDS interventions in the health sector:progress report 2008. 2008. Geneva.
    1. Koenig SP, Kuritzkes DR, Hirsch MS, Leandre F, Mukherjee JS, et al. Monitoring HIV treatment in developing countries. BMJ. 2006;332:602–604.
    1. Petti CA, Polage CR, Quinn TC, Ronald AR, Sande MA. Laboratory medicine in Africa: a barrier to effective health care. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:377–382.
    1. Gazzard B, Bernard AJ, Boffito M, Churchill D, Edwards S, et al. British HIV Association (BHIVA) guidelines for the treatment of HIV-infected adults with antiretroviral therapy (2006). HIV Med. 2006;7:487–503.
    1. Hammer SM, Saag MS, Schechter M, Montaner JS, Schooley RT, et al. Treatment for adult HIV infection: 2006 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA panel. JAMA. 2006;296:827–843.
    1. World Health Organisation. Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and adolescents: recommendations for a public health approach. 2006. Geneva.
    1. Moore DM, Awor A, Downing R, Kaplan J, Montaner JS, et al. CD4+ T-cell count monitoring does not accurately identify HIV-infected adults with virologic failure receiving antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008;49:477–484.
    1. Badri M, Lawn SD, Wood R. Utility of CD4 cell counts for early prediction of virological failure during antiretroviral therapy in a resource-limited setting. BMC Infect Dis. 2008;8:89.
    1. Mee P, Fielding KL, Charalambous S, Churchyard GJ, Grant AD. Evaluation of the WHO criteria for antiretroviral treatment failure among adults in South Africa. AIDS. 2008;22:1971–1977.
    1. Reynolds SJ, Nakigozi G, Newell K, Ndyanabo A, Galiwongo R, et al. Failure of immunologic criteria to appropriately identify antiretroviral treatment failure in Uganda. AIDS 2009
    1. UNAIDS. (2008) Report on the global AIDS epidemic. Geneva. Available at: . Accessed 23 February, 2010.
    1. United Nations Development Programme Zambia 2007/2008 Human Development Report. UNDP; New York. Available at: . Accessed 23 February, 2010
    1. Bolton-Moore C, Mubiana-Mbewe M, Cantrell RA, Chintu N, Stringer EM, et al. Clinical outcomes and CD4 cell response in children receiving antiretroviral therapy at primary health care facilities in Zambia. JAMA. 2007;298:1888–1899.
    1. Goldman JD, Cantrell RA, Mulenga LB, Tambatamba BC, Reid SE, et al. Simple adherence assessments to predict virologic failure among HIV-infected adults with discordant immunologic and clinical responses to antiretroviral therapy. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2008;24:1031–1035.
    1. Hayes RJ, Bennett S. Simple sample size calculation for cluster-randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28:319–326.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel