Cargando…
A Comparison of Methods for Analyzing Viral Load Data in Studies of HIV Patients
HIV RNA viral load (VL) is a pivotal outcome variable in studies of HIV infected persons. We propose and investigate two frameworks for analyzing VL: (1) a single-measure VL (SMVL) per participant and (2) repeated measures of VL (RMVL) per participant. We compared these frameworks using a cohort of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4474923/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26090989 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130090 |
_version_ | 1782377362149605376 |
---|---|
author | Rose, Charles E. Gardner, Lytt Craw, Jason Girde, Sonali Wawrzyniak, Andrew J. Drainoni, Mari-Lynn Davila, Jessica DeHovitz, Jack Keruly, Jeanne C. Westfall, Andrew O. Marks, Gary |
author_facet | Rose, Charles E. Gardner, Lytt Craw, Jason Girde, Sonali Wawrzyniak, Andrew J. Drainoni, Mari-Lynn Davila, Jessica DeHovitz, Jack Keruly, Jeanne C. Westfall, Andrew O. Marks, Gary |
author_sort | Rose, Charles E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | HIV RNA viral load (VL) is a pivotal outcome variable in studies of HIV infected persons. We propose and investigate two frameworks for analyzing VL: (1) a single-measure VL (SMVL) per participant and (2) repeated measures of VL (RMVL) per participant. We compared these frameworks using a cohort of 720 HIV patients in care (4,679 post-enrollment VL measurements). The SMVL framework analyzes a single VL per participant, generally captured within a “window” of time. We analyzed three SMVL methods where the VL binary outcome is defined as suppressed or not suppressed. The omit-participant method uses a 8-month “window” (-6/+2 months) around month 24 to select the participant’s VL closest to month 24 and removes participants from the analysis without a VL in the “window”. The set-to-failure method expands on the omit-participant method by including participants without a VL within the “window” and analyzes them as not suppressed. The closest-VL method analyzes each participant’s VL measurement closest to month 24. We investigated two RMVL methods: (1) repeat-binary classifies each VL measurement as suppressed or not suppressed and estimates the proportion of participants suppressed at month 24, and (2) repeat-continuous analyzes VL as a continuous variable to estimate the change in VL across time, and geometric mean (GM) VL and proportion of participants virally suppressed at month 24. Results indicated the RMVL methods have more precision than the SMVL methods, as evidenced by narrower confidence intervals for estimates of proportion suppressed and risk ratios (RR) comparing demographic strata. The repeat-continuous method had the most precision and provides more information than other considered methods. We generally recommend using the RMVL framework when there are repeated VL measurements per participant because it utilizes all available VL data, provides additional information, has more statistical power, and avoids the subjectivity of defining a “window.” |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4474923 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44749232015-06-30 A Comparison of Methods for Analyzing Viral Load Data in Studies of HIV Patients Rose, Charles E. Gardner, Lytt Craw, Jason Girde, Sonali Wawrzyniak, Andrew J. Drainoni, Mari-Lynn Davila, Jessica DeHovitz, Jack Keruly, Jeanne C. Westfall, Andrew O. Marks, Gary PLoS One Research Article HIV RNA viral load (VL) is a pivotal outcome variable in studies of HIV infected persons. We propose and investigate two frameworks for analyzing VL: (1) a single-measure VL (SMVL) per participant and (2) repeated measures of VL (RMVL) per participant. We compared these frameworks using a cohort of 720 HIV patients in care (4,679 post-enrollment VL measurements). The SMVL framework analyzes a single VL per participant, generally captured within a “window” of time. We analyzed three SMVL methods where the VL binary outcome is defined as suppressed or not suppressed. The omit-participant method uses a 8-month “window” (-6/+2 months) around month 24 to select the participant’s VL closest to month 24 and removes participants from the analysis without a VL in the “window”. The set-to-failure method expands on the omit-participant method by including participants without a VL within the “window” and analyzes them as not suppressed. The closest-VL method analyzes each participant’s VL measurement closest to month 24. We investigated two RMVL methods: (1) repeat-binary classifies each VL measurement as suppressed or not suppressed and estimates the proportion of participants suppressed at month 24, and (2) repeat-continuous analyzes VL as a continuous variable to estimate the change in VL across time, and geometric mean (GM) VL and proportion of participants virally suppressed at month 24. Results indicated the RMVL methods have more precision than the SMVL methods, as evidenced by narrower confidence intervals for estimates of proportion suppressed and risk ratios (RR) comparing demographic strata. The repeat-continuous method had the most precision and provides more information than other considered methods. We generally recommend using the RMVL framework when there are repeated VL measurements per participant because it utilizes all available VL data, provides additional information, has more statistical power, and avoids the subjectivity of defining a “window.” Public Library of Science 2015-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4474923/ /pubmed/26090989 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130090 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration, which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Rose, Charles E. Gardner, Lytt Craw, Jason Girde, Sonali Wawrzyniak, Andrew J. Drainoni, Mari-Lynn Davila, Jessica DeHovitz, Jack Keruly, Jeanne C. Westfall, Andrew O. Marks, Gary A Comparison of Methods for Analyzing Viral Load Data in Studies of HIV Patients |
title | A Comparison of Methods for Analyzing Viral Load Data in Studies of HIV Patients |
title_full | A Comparison of Methods for Analyzing Viral Load Data in Studies of HIV Patients |
title_fullStr | A Comparison of Methods for Analyzing Viral Load Data in Studies of HIV Patients |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Methods for Analyzing Viral Load Data in Studies of HIV Patients |
title_short | A Comparison of Methods for Analyzing Viral Load Data in Studies of HIV Patients |
title_sort | comparison of methods for analyzing viral load data in studies of hiv patients |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4474923/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26090989 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130090 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rosecharlese acomparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT gardnerlytt acomparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT crawjason acomparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT girdesonali acomparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT wawrzyniakandrewj acomparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT drainonimarilynn acomparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT davilajessica acomparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT dehovitzjack acomparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT kerulyjeannec acomparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT westfallandrewo acomparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT marksgary acomparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT rosecharlese comparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT gardnerlytt comparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT crawjason comparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT girdesonali comparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT wawrzyniakandrewj comparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT drainonimarilynn comparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT davilajessica comparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT dehovitzjack comparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT kerulyjeannec comparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT westfallandrewo comparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients AT marksgary comparisonofmethodsforanalyzingviralloaddatainstudiesofhivpatients |