Skip Navigation LinksHome > March 27, 2012 - Volume 26 - Issue 6 > Regional differences in predictive accuracy of WHO immunolog...
AIDS:
doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835143e3
Research Letters

Regional differences in predictive accuracy of WHO immunologic failure criteria

Kiragga, Agnes N.a; Castelnuovo, Barbaraa; Kamya, Moses R.a,b; Moore, Richardc; Manabe, Yukari C.a,c

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

aCollege of Health Sciences, Infectious Diseases Institute

bDepartment of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University Kampala, Uganda

cJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Pharmacology, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Correspondence to Agnes N. Kiragga, College of Health Sciences, Infectious Diseases Institute, Makerere University, P.O. Box 22418, Kampala, Uganda. Tel: +256 414307200; fax: +256 414307290; e-mail: akiragga@idi.co.ug

Received 19 September, 2011

Revised 2 January, 2012

Accepted 10 January, 2012

Collapse Box

Abstract

We compared the performance of the WHO immunologic criteria for treatment failure among Uganda and American patients. Antiretroviral treatment-naive patients with a CD4 T-cell count less than 200 cells/μl or AIDS at enrollment on a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors-based regimen for more than 1 year were selected. For all criteria, the positive predictive value was significantly higher in the American compared with the Ugandan patients. Population-specific guidelines should be developed using large African cohorts to identify more specific and sensitive criteria.

In industrialized countries, antiretroviral treatment (ART) efficacy is monitored through routine measurement of CD4+ cell counts and plasma viral load. Guidelines from the WHO on ART for HIV infection in resource-limited settings recommend the use of immunologic monitoring when viral load testing is not available [1,2].

Previous studies from sub-Saharan Africa have shown that the proposed criteria are neither sensitive nor specific [3–7]. We suspected that one of the reasons for poor performance in African patients is the high incidence of opportunistic infections, which could consequently impair the immune reconstitution of patients on ART [8,9].

We sought to evaluate the performance of the WHO immunologic criteria for treatment failure in a Ugandan and an American cohort and to compare the predictive values of these criteria in identifying patients on first-line ART with viral failure. We also examined the relative contribution of opportunistic infections on the performance of the criteria among the Ugandan patients.

The Infectious Diseases Institute (IDI) Research Prospective Observational Cohort is a closed research cohort of 559 patients, enrolled at ART initiation between April 2004 and April 2005 in Uganda. Details of the cohort have been published elsewhere [10].

The Johns Hopkins HIV Clinical Cohort (JHHCC) is an open observational longitudinal cohort database of HIV-infected patients in the USA, established in 1989 with over 6000 patients enrolled, with majority initiated on ART between 1999 and 2003. Details of the cohort have been published elsewhere [11].

Patients selected from both cohorts were as follows: ART-naive at cohort enrollment; initiated on zidovudine/stavudine with lamivudine and efavirenz/nevirapine; baseline CD4+ cell count less than 200 cells/μl or clinical criteria of AIDS; and on ART for at least 1 year.

We compared the characteristics of the patients at ART initiation in both cohorts. Categorical and continuous variables were compared using chi-square and Mann–Whitney tests, respectively. To compare the performance of the WHO criteria in both cohorts, we identified the proportion of patients fulfilling at least one of the three criteria: CD4+ cell count less than 100 cell/μl after 12 months; more than 50% drop from CD4+ cell count peak; and CD4+ cell count lower than baseline [1]. We then obtained the proportion of patients with confirmed viral failure at the time they met any of the criteria. We calculated the positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV). Finally, we did a sensitivity analysis excluding patients who had ever had an opportunistic infection in the first year of ART in the IDI cohort. Ethical approval was obtained from the local Institutional Review Board committees.

We included 442 patients from the IDI cohort and 153 patients from the JHHCC. At ART initiation, a lower proportion of patients from the JHHCC were female (28.8 versus 69%, P < 0.0001), had a slightly lower median age [35 years, interquartile range (IQR) 30–41 years versus 39 years, IQR 35–44 years, P < 0.001], higher median BMI (22 kg/m2, IQR, 19–26 kg/m2 versus 20 kg/m2, IQR 17–22 kg/m2, P < 0.0001), lower median CD4+ cell count per microliter (42 versus 102, P = 0.064) and a higher proportion initiated on zidovudine with lamivudine and efavirenz (39% versus 26%, P = 0.012). A larger proportion of the IDI cohort experienced an opportunistic infection in the first year of ART (28.7% versus 13.7%, P= 0.0002). Tuberculosis was the most common opportunistic infection, with (4.7%) in the IDI cohort compared with (0.6%) in the JHHCC (P= 0.021).

The proportion of patients who fulfilled each of the criteria and had confirmed virologic failure in the IDI cohort versus JHHCC were as follows: 1.1% versus 6.5% (P= 0.0002) for criterion 1, 2.9% versus 37.9% (P < 0.0001) for criterion 2 and 4.1% versus 5.9% (P = 0.354) for criterion 3.

As shown in Table 1, the PPV for virologic failure in the IDI cohort and the JHHCC, respectively, was 13.5% and 52.6%, for criterion 1; 26.0% and 84.1%, for criteria 2; and 20.4% and 78.9%, for criteria 3. The NPV for criteria 1, 2 and 3 in the IDI cohort and JHHCC, respectively, was 87.6% versus 85.5%, 93.6% versus 84.4% and 93.5% versus 71.8%.

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools

In a sensitivity analysis including only IDI cohort patients (71.3%) who did not experience an opportunistic infection, there was no significant difference in the PPV of this subgroup compared with the entire cohort for criteria 1 and 2: criterion 1, 13.0% versus 13.5% (P = 0.835); criterion 2, 26.0% versus 20.4% (P = 0.06); but, a significant difference for criterion 3 (20.4% versus 10.2%, P < 0.0001).

The WHO immunologic criteria selected higher proportions of virologically failing patients in the American than in a Ugandan cohort and had higher PPVs. Our results suggest that this difference is not due to the high rate of diagnosed opportunistic infections in the African setting, even though severe bacterial diseases often seen could also affect immunological response. Other possibilities include undiagnosed and untreated opportunistic infections, poor nutrition and differences in HIV subtypes. Studies from the east African region suggest that subtype D is associated with a faster decline in CD4+ cell count and increased risk of mortality compared with subtype A [12,13] due to increased CD4+ cells activation and subsequent apoptosis [14]. It is important to evaluate the impact of host characteristics of the infected population on ART efficacy and viral subtype [15].

Published data suggest that, with immunological monitoring only, patients with confirmed viral failure are identified after significant accumulation of drug resistance [16].

Recent studies have shown that a viral load will reduce an early and unnecessary switch to second-line therapy, reduce accumulation of resistance and prevent drug resistance viral transmission by patients who are failing [17–19].

Our study limitations included, first, the differences in the data used in both cohorts; however, patients were identified during the roll-out of ART in both countries. Second, the younger age of JHHCC patients compared with IDI cohort patients could have influenced the higher immune response in JHHCC, as has been shown previously [20,21].

In summary, our data highlight the need for viral load measurements when identifying treatment failure in HIV-positive individuals on ART. Further research into the risk factors for the limited performance of these WHO immunologic criteria in resource-limited settings is needed. Population-specific guidelines should be developed using large African cohorts to identify more specific and sensitive criteria.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

A.N.K. participated in the design of the study and performed the statistical analysis. B.C., M.R.K. and R.M. participated in its design and coordination and provided comments on the manuscript. B.C. and Y.C.M. conceived the study, participated in its design and coordination and drafted the manuscript with A.N.K. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Conflicts of interest

The work was supported by a Wellcome Trust Uganda PhD Fellowship in Infection and Immunity held by A.N.K. (grant number 084344) and National Institutes for Health grant (R01 DA11602, R01 AA16893 and K24 DA00432) held by R.M.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. World Health Organization. Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and adolescents. Recommendation for a public health approach. 2010. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241599764_eng.pdf. [Accessed on 2 January 2012].

2. Kimmel AD, Weinstein MC, Anglaret X, Goldie SJ, Losina E, Yazdanpanah Y, et al.Laboratory monitoring to guide switching antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2010; 54:258–268.

3. Reynolds SJ, Nakigozi G, Newell K, Ndyanabo A, Galiwongo R, Boaz I, et al. Failure of immunologic criteria to appropriately identify antiretroviral treatment failure in Uganda. AIDS 2009; 23:697–700.

4. Moore DM, Awor A, Downing R, Kaplan J, Montaner JS, Hancock J, 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.

5. van Oosterhout JJ, Brown L, Weigel R, Kumwenda JJ, Mzinganjira D, Saukila N, et al. Diagnosis of antiretroviral therapy failure in Malawi: poor performance of clinical and immunological WHO criteria. Trop Med Int Health 2009; 14:856–861.

6. 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.

7. Castelnuovo B, Kiragga A, Schaefer P, Kambugu A, Manabe Y. High rate of misclassification of treatment failure based on WHO immunological criteria. AIDS 2009; 23:1295–1296.author reply 1296.

8. Hermans SM, Kiragga AN, Schaefer P, Kambugu A, Hoepelman AI, Manabe YC. Incident tuberculosis during antiretroviral therapy contributes to suboptimal immune reconstitution in a large urban HIV clinic in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One 2010; 5:e10527.

9. Lawn SD, Badri M, Wood R. Tuberculosis among HIV-infected patients receiving HAART: long term incidence and risk factors in a South African cohort. AIDS 2005; 19:2109–2116.

10. Castelnuovo B, Manabe YC, Kiragga A, Kamya M, Easterbrook P, Kambugu A. Cause-specific mortality and the contribution of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome in the first 3 years after antiretroviral therapy initiation in an urban African cohort. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:965–972.

11. Moore RD. Understanding the clinical and economic outcomes of HIV therapy: the Johns Hopkins HIV clinical practice cohort. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1998; 17 (Suppl 1):S38–S41.

12. Vasan A, Renjifo B, Hertzmark E, Chaplin B, Msamanga G, Essex M, et al. Different rates of disease progression of HIV type 1 infection in Tanzania based on infecting subtype. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:843–852.

13. Kiwanuka N, Robb M, Laeyendecker O, Kigozi G, Wabwire-Mangen F, Makumbi FE, et al. HIV-1 viral subtype differences in the rate of CD4+ T-cell decline among HIV seroincident antiretroviral naive persons in Rakai district, Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2010; 54:180–184.

14. Bousheri S, Burke C, Ssewanyana I, Harrigan R, Martin J, Hunt P, et al. Infection with different HIV subtypes is associated with CD4 activation-associated dysfunction and apoptosis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009; 52:548–552.

15. Kosakovsky Pond SL, Smith DM. Are all subtypes created equal? The effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy against nonsubtype B HIV-1. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48:1306–1309.

16. Hosseinipour MC, van Oosterhout JJ, Weigel R, Phiri S, Kamwendo D, Parkin N, et al. The public health approach to identify antiretroviral therapy failure: high-level nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance among Malawians failing first-line antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 2009; 23:1127–1134.

17. Sigaloff KC, Hamers RL, Wallis CL, Kityo C, Siwale M, Ive P, et al.Unnecessary antiretroviral treatment switches and accumulation of HIV resistance mutations; two arguments for viral load monitoring in Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2011; 58:23–31.

18. Keiser O, Chi BH, Gsponer T, Boulle A, Orrell C, Phiri S, et al.Outcomes of antiretroviral treatment in programmes with and without routine viral load monitoring in southern Africa. AIDS 2011; 25:1761–1769.

19. Hamers RL, Wallis CL, Kityo C, Siwale M, Mandaliya K, Conradie F, et al.HIV-1 drug resistance in antiretroviral-naive individuals in sub-Saharan Africa after rollout of antiretroviral therapy: a multicentre observational study. Lancet Infect Dis 2011; 11:750–759.

20. Nakanjako D, Kyabayinze DJ, Mayanja-Kizza H, Katabira E, Kamya MR. Eligibility for HIV/AIDS treatment among adults in a medical emergency setting at an urban hospital in Uganda. Afr Health Sci 2007; 7:124–128.

21. Sabin CA, Smith CJ, d’Arminio Monforte A, Battegay M, Gabiano C, Galli L, et al. Response to combination antiretroviral therapy: variation by age. AIDS 2008; 22:1463–1473.

© 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Login