/
Are we there yet? Spatial-temporal Are we there yet? Spatial-temporal

Are we there yet? Spatial-temporal - PowerPoint Presentation

jane-oiler
jane-oiler . @jane-oiler
Follow
377 views
Uploaded On 2018-01-21

Are we there yet? Spatial-temporal - PPT Presentation

trend of mother to child HIV transmission in western Kenya 20072013 Anthony Waruru Thomas Achia Hellen Muttai Lucy Nganga Abraham Katana Peter Young Jim Tobias Peter Juma ID: 625608

spatial model hiv mtct model spatial mtct hiv temporal rates covariates transmission 2013 births age pmtct testing 100 diagnosis

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Are we there yet? Spatial-temporal" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Are we there yet? Spatial-temporal trend of mother to child HIV transmission in western Kenya, 2007-2013

Anthony Waruru, Thomas Achia, Hellen Muttai, Lucy Ng’ang’a, Abraham Katana, Peter Young, Jim Tobias, Peter Juma, Thorkild Tylleskär26th July 2017

1

Ministry of HealthSlide2

Conflict of InterestNo conflicts of interest to declare.Slide3

Background (1)Elimination

of mother to child transmission of HIV (e-MTCT) can be achieved through PMTCT efforts to reduce HIV transmission.PMTCT services are often prioritized by district-level service planning.Early infant diagnostic testing (EID) is a strategy of identifying HIV status for infants and assess PMTCT impact.3Slide4

Background (2)Measuring e-MTCT progress can be done through:

Measuring proportion of infected infants [<5%] Measuring case rates / 100,000 births [<50]Putting these measures in a spatial context is important.4Slide5

AimsAssess

district level trends and factors associated with MTCT.Model MTCT rates over time and space. 5Slide6

methodsSlide7

Study setting7Slide8

Data, laboratory procedures, analyses and mapping

Dried blood spot (DBS) samples collected accompanied by a submission form and sent to a regional laboratory.HIV testing performed using PCR. Analysis and mapping done using: Stata v.14. R – Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA) Quantum GIS (QGIS) to map fitted MTCT rates

8Slide9

Analysis data set9

Over 1 year oldn=5,186 (5.1%)*

Missing age

n=1715

(

1.7%)

Included in analyses

n=95,215

(

93.2%)

All

records

N=102,116

Infants ≤12 months old

Exclusions

All infant and children samplesSlide10

RESULTSSlide11

Raw MTCT rates and early infant diagnosis

11Testing by 8 weeks/2 months considered “early”Slide12

Factors associated with MTCT

12CharacteristicTotal (n)

Positive, n (%)

Adjusted

aOR

[95% CI]

Total

95

,

215

10,095

 

 

Age at diagnosis

Under/= 8 weeks

52,504

3,307 (

6.3%)

ref

.

Over 8 weeks

42,711

6,788 (

15.9%)

1.17

(1.08,1.26)

Maternal regimen

SdNVP only

2,763

279 (

10.1%)

2.51

(2.32,2.72)

AZT+NVP+3TC |

short course

11,634

871 (

7.5%)

1.51

(1.33,1.72)

ART

for prophylaxis

4,551

328 (

7.2%)

1.71

(1.49,1.97)

ART

for treatment22,3891,171 (5.2%)ref.

Covariates

:

year of

diagnosis

,

sex

, infant’s age,

age at diagnosis

,

maternal regimen

, breastfeeding, and

mother

ARV statusSlide13

Models comparison13

The best fitting model was spatial-temporal model with covariates (age at diagnosis, breastfeeding, sdNVP use, infant’s age)

Model

type

DIC

Effective parameters

Model choice

Model

1:- A

generalized linear model (non-spatial)

1,153

4.0

Fourth

Model

2:-

Spatial model without covariates

1,319

11.8

Fifth

Model

3:- Spatial-temporal

model without covariates

306

59.7

Second

Model

4:-

Spatial non-temporal model with covariates

325

62.3

Third

Model

5:-

Spatial-temporal model with covariates

305

58.8

First*Slide14

Spatial-temporal MTCT trend

14Slide15

Case rates /100,000 births

15* Kenya population estimates 2010-2018† PEPFAR annual progress report (APR 2013) data

 

District

Estimated live births in 2013*

Women tested for HIV in 2013

HIV+ women in 2013

Infants tested

in

2013

Absolute transmission (number infected)

Transmission rates per 100,000 live births

Rank (low to high)

All

275,169

203,069

15,136

17,129

1,231

447

-

Bondo

13,262

9,925

1,372

1,739

116

875

11

Kisii

36,841

25,143

622

701

46

125

3

Gucha

17,231

17,316

375

293

20

116

2

Homa

Bay

43,423

13,159

1,257

1,968

163

375

5

Kisumu

24,931

29,599

2,882

2,469

167

670

9

Kuria

11,696

13,774

214

473

35

299

4

Migori

30,193

26,391

2,503

2,582

190

629

7

Nyamira

26,640

15,827

354

445

22

83

1

Nyando

19,063

10,307

1,208

1,286

102

535

6

Rachuonyo

17,243

12,658

1,451

1,457

121

702

10

Siaya

24,984

21,589

1,998

2,276

163

652

8

Suba

9,662

7,381

900

1,440

86

890

12Slide16

Summary of findingsEarly

testing rate has improved over time.Significant drop in mother to child transmission of HIV in 7-year period.Case rate per 100,000 live births is still high.Spatial-temporal model with covariates was best in explaining MTCT geographical variation.16Slide17

CONCLUSIONSlide18

Does spatial-temporal modeling help us tell the story?

LimitationsRoutine data from programs are often incomplete. Did not take into account the underlying population. StrengthsMay be better than other models. Offers a visual tool to help program planners focus efforts. 18Slide19

Are we there yet?

Improvement in uptake of infant testing and reduction of MTCT rates ~ growth of the PMTCT program.Overall, the PMTCT program coverage has contributed to reduction in MTCT rates in western Kenya.Geographical disparities may signify gaps in distribution of e-MTCT efforts.More spatial and spatial temporal analyses should be considered as additional tools for planning. 19Slide20

Thank you

AcknowledgementsMinistry of Health Kenya medical research institute (KEMRI) – field work & laboratory U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/PEPFAR - fundingUniversity of Washington/University of Nairobi – GIS training 20

Attribution of Support: This evaluation was supported by the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) through U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Global HIV/TB (CoAg

# GH000041).Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the funding agencies.