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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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