The median CD4 lymphocyte count was 420 cells/μL and 74 patients (24%) had CD4 counts of <200 cells/μL. The outcomes of treatment are shown in Table 1. Of the 310 patients,
156 [50.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 42.1–53.3%] experienced treatment failure under definition 1, 10 (3.2%; 95% CI 1.5–5.8%) experienced treatment failure under definition 2, and 16 (4.5%; 95% CI 2.5–7.4%) experienced treatment failure under definition 3 over the 108 months of follow-up. Figure 1 shows the Kaplan–Meier analysis of the proportion of individuals who would have been deemed Epigenetics inhibitor to have experienced treatment failure on the basis of the three different definitions. There was selleck chemicals llc a significant difference (P=0.01) in the probability of failure between definitions 1 and 2 and between definitions 1 and 3 (P=0.01), but not between definitions 2 and 3 (P=0.5). To determine whether any definition could show a significant reduction in treatment failure over time, we compared treatment failure during the first half of the study period (2000–mid-2004) with that during the second half (mid-2004–2008) for each of the three definitions separately (Fig. 2a–c). Treatment failure
was different between the two time periods only for definition 1 (P=0.5), and not for either definition 2 (P=0.5) or definition 3 (P=0.5). Table 2 shows the comparison of the three different definitions for assessing virological response with the characteristics of an ideal quality measure. We compared three definitions of HIV treatment failure in a single clinical service and compared them with the characteristics of ideal quality outcome measures. The striking observation was that the failure rate was very much higher for the definition using TLOVR than for the other definitions because ceasing treatment for any reason is defined as treatment
failure in the TLOVR definition. Because individuals most often ceased or changed treatment for reasons other than virological rebound, the TLOVR definition was the least useful Depsipeptide purchase representation of clinical prognosis. In contrast, the rate of failure in definitions 2 and 3 was too low to allow detection of meaningful changes over time, even in a large clinic service such as ours. No single definition stood out as superior for the other requirements of a quality outcome measure. This is the first study to assess different definitions of HIV treatment failure and to compare these with the requirements used to evaluate quality outcome measures in a single health service. On the basis of these findings, it may be that the best option is to set a benchmark level for either definition 2 or definition 3 and to monitor it to ensure that it remains high. This study has a number of limitations that should be considered when evaluating these data.