IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0087879.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simplified Clinical Prediction Scores to Target Viral Load Testing in Adults with Suspected First Line Treatment Failure in Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Author

Listed:
  • Johan van Griensven
  • Vichet Phan
  • Sopheak Thai
  • Olivier Koole
  • Lutgarde Lynen

Abstract

Background: For settings with limited laboratory capacity, 2013 World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend targeted HIV-1 viral load (VL) testing to identify virological failure. We previously developed and validated a clinical prediction score (CPS) for targeted VL testing, relying on clinical, adherence and laboratory data. While outperforming the WHO failure criteria, it required substantial calculation and review of all previous laboratory tests. In response, we developed four simplified, less error-prone and broadly applicable CPS versions that can be done ‘on the spot’. Methodology/Principal: Findings From May 2010 to June 2011, we validated the original CPS in a non-governmental hospital in Phnom Penh, Cambodia applying the CPS to adults on first-line treatment >1 year. Virological failure was defined as a single VL >1000 copies/ml. The four CPSs included CPS1 with ‘current CD4 count’ instead of %-decline-from-peak CD4; CPS2 with hemoglobin measurements removed; CPS3 having ‘decrease in CD4 count below baseline value’ removed; CPS4 was purely clinical. Score development relied on the Spiegelhalter/Knill-Jones method. Variables independently associated with virological failure with a likelihood ratio ≥1.5 or ≤0.67 were retained. CPS performance was evaluated based on the area-under-the-ROC-curve (AUROC) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The CPSs were validated in an independent dataset. A total of 1490 individuals (56.6% female, median age: 38 years (interquartile range (IQR 33–44)); median baseline CD4 count: 94 cells/µL (IQR 28–205), median time on antiretroviral therapy 3.6 years (IQR 2.1–5.1)), were included. Forty-five 45 (3.0%) individuals had virological failure. CPS1 yielded an AUROC of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.62–0.75) in validation, CPS2 an AUROC of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62–0.74), and CPS3, an AUROC of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61–0.73). The purely clinical CPS4 performed poorly (AUROC-0.59; 95% CI: 0.53–0.65). Conclusions: Simplified CPSs retained acceptable accuracy as long as current CD4 count testing was included. Ease of field application and field accuracy remains to be defined.

Suggested Citation

  • Johan van Griensven & Vichet Phan & Sopheak Thai & Olivier Koole & Lutgarde Lynen, 2014. "Simplified Clinical Prediction Scores to Target Viral Load Testing in Adults with Suspected First Line Treatment Failure in Phnom Penh, Cambodia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-5, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0087879
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0087879
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0087879&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0087879?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0087879. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.