4.6 Article

Universal Definition of Loss to Follow-Up in HIV Treatment Programs: A Statistical Analysis of 111 Facilities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America

Journal

PLOS MEDICINE
Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001111

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  2. National Cancer Institute
  3. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [U01AI069927, U01AI069919, U01AI069924, U01AI069907, U01AI069923]
  4. Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR)
  5. Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  6. Stichting Aids Fonds
  7. US National Institutes of Health [D43-TW001035, P30-AI027767]
  8. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation [2007061]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Although patient attrition is recognized as a threat to the long-term success of antiretroviral therapy programs worldwide, there is no universal definition for classifying patients as lost to follow-up (LTFU). We analyzed data from health facilities across Africa, Asia, and Latin America to empirically determine a standard LTFU definition. Methods and Findings: At a set status classification date, patients were categorized as either active or LTFU according to different intervals from time of last clinic encounter. For each threshold, we looked forward 365 d to assess the performance and accuracy of this initial classification. The best-performing definition for LTFU had the lowest proportion of patients misclassified as active or LTFU. Observational data from 111 health facilities-representing 180,718 patients from 19 countries-were included in this study. In the primary analysis, for which data from all facilities were pooled, an interval of 180 d (95% confidence interval [CI]: 173-181 d) since last patient encounter resulted in the fewest misclassifications (7.7%, 95% CI: 7.6%-7.8%). A secondary analysis that gave equal weight to cohorts and to regions generated a similar result (175 d); however, an alternate approach that used inverse weighting for cohorts based on variance and equal weighting for regions produced a slightly lower summary measure (150 d). When examined at the facility level, the best-performing definition varied from 58 to 383 d (mean = 150 d), but when a standard definition of 180 d was applied to each facility, only slight increases in misclassification (mean = 1.2%, 95% CI: 1.0%-1.5%) were observed. Using this definition, the proportion of patients classified as LTFU by facility ranged from 3.1% to 45.1% (mean = 19.9%, 95% CI: 19.1%-21.7%). Conclusions: Based on this evaluation, we recommend the adoption of >= 180 d since the last clinic visit as a standard LTFU definition. Such standardization is an important step to understanding the reasons that underlie patient attrition and establishing more reliable and comparable program evaluation worldwide.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available