Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2022 Apr 13;2(4):e0000124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000124

Evaluation of kidney function among people living with HIV initiating antiretroviral therapy in Zambia

Jake M Pry 1,*, Michael J Vinikoor 2, Carolyn Bolton Moore 1,2, Monika Roy 3, Aaloke Mody 4, Izukanji Sikazwe 1, Anjali Sharma 1, Belinda Chihota 1, Miquel Duran-Frigola 5, Harriet Daultrey 6, Jacob Mutale 1, Andrew D Kerkhoff 3, Elvin H Geng 4, Brad H Pollock 6, Jaime H Vera 7
Editor: Siyan Yi8
PMCID: PMC10021838  PMID: 36962175

Abstract

As the response to the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa continues to mature, a growing number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) are aging and risk for non-communicable diseases increases. Routine laboratory tests of serum creatinine have been conducted to assess HIV treatment (ART) suitability. Here we utilize those measures to assess kidney function impairment among those initiating ART. Identification of non-communicable disease (NCD) risks among those in HIV care creates opportunity to improve public health through care referral and/or NCD/HIV care integration. We estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) using routinely collected serum creatinine measures among a cohort of PLHIV with an HIV care visit at one of 113 Centre for Infectious Disease Research Zambia (CIDRZ) supported sites between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2017, across seven of the ten provinces in Zambia. We used mixed-effect Poisson regression to assess predictors of eGFR <60ml/min/1.73m2 allowing random effects at the individual and facility level. Additionally, we assessed agreement between four eGFR formulae with unadjusted CKD-EPI as a standard using Scott/Fleiss method across five categories of kidney function. A total of 72,933 observations among 68,534 individuals met the inclusion criteria for analysis. Of the 68,534, the majority were female 41,042 (59.8%), the median age was 34 (interquartile range [IQR]: 28–40), and median CD4 cell count was 292 (IQR: 162–435). The proportion of individuals with an eGFR <60ml/min/1.73m2 was 6.9% (95% CI: 6.7–7.1%) according to the unadjusted CKD-EPI equation. There was variation in agreement across eGFR formulas considered compared to unadjusted CKD-EPI (χ2 p-value <0.001). Estimated GFR less than 60ml/min/1.73m2, per the unadjusted CKD-EPI equation, was significantly associated with age, sex, body mass index, and blood pressure. Using routine serum creatinine measures, we identified a significant proportion of individuals with eGFR indicating moderate or great kidney function impairment among PLHIV initiating ART in Zambia. It is possible that differentiated service delivery models could be developed to address this subset of those in HIV care with increased risk of chronic kidney disease.

Background

As the response to the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa continues to mature, a growing number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) are aging and there is growing risk for non-communicable diseases (NCD) such as chronic kidney disease (CKD) [15]. Many resource-limited countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), including Zambia, follow the World Health Organization Guidelines to assess renal function prior to or at the time of starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), which has potential for nephrotoxicity [6,7]. Routine measurement of serum creatinine also creates an opportunity for epidemiological analysis of kidney function impairment including acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease. Presently, relatively few resources are allocated and available for follow-up assessment and referral in cases of high serum creatinine measures [8]. Better estimates of kidney function impairment can provide evidence and motivating rationale to expand NCD care guidance at ART care facilities and for HIV/NCD care integration to improve outcomes among those in HIV care in Zambia.

Chronic kidney disease prevalence is estimated to be 10.0% in Zambia [9]. Evidence among those in HIV care suggests that kidney function measures, such as creatinine clearance, are associated with progression to chronic kidney disease and early mortality globally [1012]. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and less so tenofovir alafenamide, have been linked with proximal tubular dysfunction, Fanconi syndrome, and acute kidney injury [1316]. An assessment of kidney function impairment was conducted in 2019 at a single high-volume HIV care facility urban Zambia among ART-naïve individuals entering HIV care in 2011–2013; it found that 4.1% had moderate or severe eGFR measures (59–15 ml/min/1.73m2) [13]. Despite routine collection of serum creatinine measures for HIV care, robust, generalizable analyses of large HIV cohorts regarding estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) are scant. Furthermore, a gap remains in understanding predictors of kidney function impairment among those initiating ART in Zambia and sub-Saharan Africa.

We calculated eGFR from routine, programmatic HIV care measures recorded in the national electronic HIV medical record. Leveraging information in the medical record we assessed predictors of kidney function impairment (<60ml/min/1.73m2) using regression analysis. We also evaluated correlation between TDF-containing regimens and eGFR and compared six different formulae for eGFR. These findings can guide policy, care recommendations, and represent the opportunity for kidney/HIV care integration to improve health outcomes through spotlighting this high-risk group at the national level [1720].

Methods

Design

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis on the outcome of estimated glomerular filtration rate among individuals initiating ART in Zambia using the national electronic HIV medical record. Additionally, among those with multiple measures in the HIV medical record we conducted descriptive analysis to identify trends in eGFR during a two years of follow-up period.

Population

All individuals with an HIV care clinic visit recorded at one of the 113 HIV care sites supported by the Centre for Infectious Disease Research Zambia (CIDRZ) between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2017, aged >16 to 80 years with at least one serum creatinine measure on record were eligible to be included in the analysis. HIV care data from all health facilities within seven of the ten Zambian provinces are recorded in the EMR; this includes both urban and rural settings as well as all levels of care (e.g., clinics and hospitals).

Setting

The Centre for Infectious Disease Research Zambia (CIDRZ) is a non-governmental organization with a national scope conducting research and providing support in the form of public health, laboratory, and research training, program guidance and development through robust monitoring and evaluation, especially HIV and tuberculosis. CIDRZ maintains close partnerships with the Zambia Ministry of Health (MoH), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Zambia to support HIV prevention, care, and treatment services, including mobile laboratory services to improve reach and coverage of critical laboratory services, in public clinics in both rural and urban settings across four of ten Zambian provinces, funding primarily through PEPFAR/CDC [21].

Measures

Individuals receiving HIV care in Zambia are assigned a unique identifying number and undergo an initial history and physical examination and baseline laboratory tests. All data collected at an HIV care visit, including demographic, laboratory, and clinical information are recorded in the Zambian national HIV electronic medical record, SmartCare. Prior to ART initiation, the MoH recommends measurement of serum creatinine, as first-line ART regimens often include TDF, which has potential nephrotoxicity [22,23]. While specific recommendations for serum creatinine measures are not outlined beyond ART initiation, additional, follow-up measures may be ordered on a clinical, ad hoc, basis as well. Guidelines for ART initiation varied by required CD4 cell count and/or World Health Organization (WHO) stage during the analysis period [2224]. All clinical data including serum creatinine results from initiation and subsequent clinical visits are recorded in the EMR [23]. Other covariates of interest that we used in this analysis included height, weight, date of birth, sex, time in care, previous diabetes diagnosis, ART regimen, pregnancy status, and blood pressure, which were abstracted from the initial history and physical, clinical follow-up, and/or short visit forms. Though the framework for capturing covariates exists in the electronic HIV medical record it is important to note that they are not required by the system.

Estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) were categorized into one of five mutually exclusive categories in accordance with the United States National Kidney Foundation: normal kidney function (≥90 ml/min/1.73m2), mild kidney function impairment (60-89ml/min/1.73m2), moderate kidney function impairment (30-59ml/min/1.73m2), severe kidney function impairment (15–29 ml/min/1.73m2), and kidney failure (<15 ml/min/1.73m2 [25]. Several formulae for eGFR were implemented including (1) CKD-EPI equation (adjusted and unadjusted for race), (2) Cockcroft-Galt equation (CG), (3) Mayo Quadratic Equation (Mayo), and (4) four-variable modification of diet in renal disease equation (adjusted and unadjusted for race) (MDRD-4) [2630].

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculations are as follows:

  • eGFRfemale(CKDEPI)=141*min(SCr0.7)0.329*max(SCr0.7)1.209*0.993Age*1.018*(1.159ifblack)
  • eGFRmale(CKDEPI)=141*min(SCr0.9)0.411*max(SCr0.9)1.209*0.993Age*(1.159ifblack)
  • eGFRfemale(CG)=[(140age)*weight*0.85]/(72*SCr)
  • eGFRmale(CG)=[(140age)*weight]/(72*SCr)
  • eGFRfemale(MDRD4)=186*(SerumCreatinine)1.154*Age0.203*(0.742)*(1.212ifblack)
  • eGFRmale(MDRD4)=186*(SerumCreatinine)1.154*Age0.203*(1.212ifblack)
  • eGFR(Mayo)=e[(1.911++5.249SCr)(2.114SCr2)0.00686*Age0.205(iffemale)

Note: All equations use mg/dL measures for serum creatinine (SCr) and age in years.

Blood pressure categorization was done in accordance with American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2017 guidelines except for severe hypertension defined as systolic pressure ≥180mmHg or diastolic pressure ≥120mmHg [3134].

Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from weight (kg) and height (m) data recorded in the initial history and physical form extracted from the EMR where the following equation was applied:

bodymassindex=weight(kg)height2(m)

Observations of BMI outside the 6–50 range, were dropped from analysis. Multiple imputation was considered where missingness was <30%. Categories for BMI are defined according to World Health Organization criteria [35].

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were compared using independent t-tests for continuous comparisons and contingency table analysis with χ2 tests for categorical comparisons. We conducted mixed-effects Poisson regression on eGFR <60ml/min per unadjusted CKD-EPI formula at baseline (ART initiation) without adjustment for race/ethnicity allowing random effects at facility level. For those with multiple creatinine measures we assessed the change in eGFR at baseline, three to twelve months and greater than twelve months. Unadjusted formulas were compared using Scott/Fleiss Pi agreement estimation with CKD-EPI as the comparison/referent formula. All analyses were completed using Stata 15 SE (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas USA) and figures were created using R Software 4.0.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Ethical statement

The review of existing, de-identified, routinely collected programmatic data was approved by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (2018–381), University of Zambia Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (011-12- 17), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA (18–0854) and the Institutional Review Board at Washington University, St. Louis, USA (2019–11143).

Results

A total of 467,178 individuals were recorded in the national electronic HIV medical record from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2017 among which 68,628 (14.7%) met the inclusion criteria and a total of 72,933 unique observations (3,209 individuals had multiple measures on record) were included in the analysis dataset. Of the 68, 628, the majority were women (59.8%), the median age was 34 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 28–40 years), and the median CD4 cell count was 292 (IQR: 162–435) (Table 1). The median body mass index was within normal weight category limits at 20.7 (IQR: 18.5–23.4) with 16.6% categorized as overweight or obese.

Table 1. Analysis population characteristics by CKD-EPI estimated glomerular filtration rate category at ART initiation visit.

Factor Level Normal Mild Moderate Severe Failure p-value
N   43547 20257 3917 447 366
Sex Female 24906 (57.2%) 13130 (64.8%) 2444 (62.4%) 246 (55.0%) 213 (58.2%) <0.001
Male 18641 (42.8%) 7127 (35.2%) 1473 (37.6%) 201 (45.0%) 153 (41.8%)
Age Category <25 years 7069 (16.2%) 1328 (6.6%) 179 (4.6%) 30 (6.7%) 32 (8.7%) <0.001
25–29 years 9666 (22.2%) 2709 (13.4%) 376 (9.6%) 53 (11.9%) 59 (16.1%)
30–34 years 10480 (24.1%) 4293 (21.2%) 581 (14.8%) 96 (21.5%) 66 (18.0%)
35–39 years 8123 (18.7%) 4183 (20.6%) 736 (18.8%) 70 (15.7%) 76 (20.8%)
40–44 years 4436 (10.2%) 3296 (16.3%) 643 (16.4%) 61 (13.6%) 55 (15.0%)
45–49 years 2044 (4.7%) 2008 (9.9%) 473 (12.1%) 50 (11.2%) 36 (9.8%)
50–54 years 1031 (2.4%) 1203 (5.9%) 380 (9.7%) 33 (7.4%) 20 (5.5%)
55–59 years 415 (1.0%) 651 (3.2%) 245 (6.3%) 25 (5.6%) 13 (3.6%)
60–64 years 181 (0.4%) 321 (1.6%) 159 (4.1%) 13 (2.9%) 7 (1.9%)
65 years 102 (0.2%) 265 (1.3%) 145 (3.7%) 16 (3.6%) 2 (0.5%)
Body Mass Index Underweight 1850 (4.2%) 494 (2.4%) 148 (3.8%) 30 (6.7%) 39 (10.7%) <0.001
Normal Weight 4487 (10.3%) 1222 (6.0%) 298 (7.6%) 49 (11.0%) 37 (10.1%)
Overweight 891 (2.0%) 277 (1.4%) 72 (1.8%) 11 (2.5%) 6 (1.6%)
Obese 293 (0.7%) 126 (0.6%) 32 (0.8%) 3 (0.7%) 5 (1.4%)
Unknown 36026 (82.7%) 18138 (89.5%) 3367 (86.0%) 354 (79.2%) 279 (76.2%)
Diabetes Diabetic 41 (0.1%) 19 (0.1%) 6 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0.71
Missing 43506 (99.9%) 20238 (99.9%) 3911 (99.8%) 447 (100.0%) 366 (100.0%)
Blood Pressure Category Hypotensive 2424 (5.6%) 881 (4.3%) 243 (6.2%) 47 (10.5%) 40 (10.9%) <0.001
Normotensive 13677 (31.4%) 5628 (27.8%) 1115 (28.5%) 128 (28.6%) 97 (26.5%)
Pre-Hypertensive 2397 (5.5%) 1075 (5.3%) 183 (4.7%) 26 (5.8%) 16 (4.4%)
Hypertensive Stage I 4481 (10.3%) 2228 (11.0%) 429 (11.0%) 50 (11.2%) 38 (10.4%)
Hypertensive Stage II 2277 (5.2%) 1375 (6.8%) 371 (9.5%) 21 (4.7%) 27 (7.4%)
Severe Hypertension 121 (0.3%) 126 (0.6%) 49 (1.3%) 5 (1.1%) 1 (0.3%)
Unknown 18170 (41.7%) 8944 (44.2%) 1527 (39.0%) 170 (38.0%) 147 (40.2%)
ART Regimen First Line Non-TDF 1242 (2.9%) 636 (3.1%) 775 (19.8%) 212 (47.4%) 99 (27.9%) <0.001
First Line TDF Containing 37503 (86.1%) 17407 (85.9%) 2758 (70.4%) 183 (40.9%) 202 (55.2%)
PI Containing 146 (0.3%) 45 (0.2%) 11 (0.3%) 1 (0.2%) 2 (0.5%)
Other First Line 166 (0.4%) 33 (0.2%) 21 (0.5%) 2 (0.4%) 3 (0.8%)
Missing 4490 (10.3%) 2136 (10.5%) 352 (9.0%) 49 (11.0%) 60 (16.4%)
Year Care Initiated 2011 8340 (19.2%) 4404 (21.7%) 819 (20.9%) 95 (21.3%) 63 (17.2%) <0.001
2012 8353 (19.2%) 3752 (18.5%) 686 (17.5%) 83 (18.6%) 58 (15.8%)
2013 8158 (18.7%) 4205 (20.8%) 732 (18.7%) 84 (18.8%) 56 (15.3%)
2014 7935 (18.2%) 3925 (19.4%) 675 (17.2%) 82 (18.3%) 54 (14.8%)
2015 5560 (12.8%) 2047 (10.1%) 504 (12.9%) 49 (11.0%) 52 (14.2%)
2016 4383 (10.1%) 1648 (8.1%) 423 (10.8%) 46 (10.3%) 60 (16.4%)
2017 818 (1.9%) 276 (1.4%) 78 (2.0%) 8 (1.8%) 23 (6.3%)
CD4 Cell Count Median (IQR) 296 (167–440) 296 (166–434) 236 (118–380) 191 (81–333) 221 (94–396) <0.001
CD4 Cell Count >500 CD4 cell count 5734 (13.2%) 2562 (12.6%) 367 (9.4%) 26 (5.8%) 36 (9.8%) <0.001
351–500 CD4 cell count 7077 (16.3%) 3544 (17.5%) 478 (12.2%) 39 (8.7%) 33 (9.0%)
251–350 CD4 cell count 6456 (14.8%) 3110 (15.4%) 520 (13.3%) 55 (12.3%) 40 (10.9%)
100–250 CD4 cell count 8748 (20.1%) 4234 (20.9%) 915 (23.4%) 95 (21.3%) 70 (19.1%)
<100 CD4 Cell Count 4530 (10.4%) 2173 (10.7%) 599 (15.3%) 88 (19.7%) 63 (17.2%)
Unknown 11002 (25.3%) 4634 (22.9%) 1038 (26.5%) 144 (32.2%) 124 (33.9%)

Note: p-value for continuous variables were calculated with t-test and p-values for categorical variables were calculated with Chi-squared test, ART-antiretroviral therapy, IQR-interquartile range.

Prevalence of kidney function impairment

We found that 6.9% (95% CI: 6.7–7.1%) of those reviewed had an eGFR <60ml/min/1.73m2, per CKD-EPI formula (Table 1). The median eGFR (CKD-EPI) among men was higher 101.9ml/min/1.73m2 (IQR: 83.9–115.5ml/min/1.73m2) compared to women (96.3ml/min/1.73m2 IQR: 79.7–114.3ml/min/1.73m2). Severe kidney function impairment or kidney failure were observed among 2.5% (95% CI: 2.1, 2.9%) of those 50 years of age and older (Fig 1A). The crude prevalence ratio was highest for those in the 65+ age group at 11.22 (95% CI: 9.40, 13.40) compared to those aged 17–24 years (Table 2).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

A) Mosaic Plot Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) Category by Age Category B) Stacked Bar Chart eGFR Category by Hypertensive Category. Notes: The visit interval is 0 at ART initiation/baseline, individual follow-up time limited to two years.

Table 2. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios for eGFR (CKD-EPI) <60ml/min/1.73m2 at baseline.

Covariate Level Crude Adjusted
PR 95% CI PR 95% CI
Sex Female ref ref ref ref
Male 0.95 (0.90, 1.00) 0.74 (0.69, 0.79)
Age Category 17–24 years ref ref ref ref
25–29 years 1.36 (1.17, 1.57) 1.38 (1.18, 1.62)
30–34 years 1.71 (1.48, 1.96) 1.77 (1.52, 2.04)
35–39 years 2.37 (2.07, 2.72) 2.46 (2.09, 2.89)
40–44 years 3.20 (2.79, 3.69) 3.25 (2.68, 3.93)
45–49 years 4.33 (3.75, 5.01) 4.34 (3.48, 5.40)
50–54 years 5.83 (5.02, 6.77) 5.70 (4.51, 7.20)
55–59 years 7.64 (6.51, 8.95) 7.20 (5.72, 9.07)
60–64 years 9.54 (8.00, 11.37) 9.09 (7.15, 11.55)
65+ years 11.22 (9.40, 13.40) 10.18 (7.83, 13.24)
Hypertension Category Hypotensive 1.43 (1.27, 1.60) 1.35 (1.18, 1.53)
Normotensive ref ref ref ref
Pre-Hypertensive 0.94 (0.82, 1.07) 0.92 (0.81, 1.04)
Hypertensive Stage I 1.11 (1.00, 1.22) 1.03 (0.94, 1.14)
Hypertensive Stage II 1.57 (1.42, 1.74) 1.23 (1.11, 1.36)
Severe Hypertension 2.81 (2.22, 3.54) 1.63 (1.34, 1.99)
Unknown 0.97 (0.91, 1.04) 1.04 (0.95, 1.14)
CD4 Cell Count >500 ref ref ref ref
351–500 1.00 (0.89, 1.13) 0.93 (0.82, 1.05)
251–350 1.24 (1.10, 1.40) 1.11 (0.97, 1.28)
100–250 1.62 (1.45, 1.77) 1.35 (1.19, 1.52)
<100 2.10 (1.88, 2.35) 1.72 (1.48, 2.01)
Unknown 1.60 (1.44, 1.77) 1.43 (1.25, 1.63)

Note: PR–prevalence ratio, CI–confidence interval, crude and adjusted analysis allow random effect at the facility level.

Kidney function impairment and blood pressure

The median systolic and diastolic blood pressure among 39,566 (57.3%) for which a blood pressure measure was recorded was 110mmHg (IQR: 100-120mmHg) and 70mmHg (IQR: 60-80mmHg), respectively (Table 1). We observed an inverse relationship between eGFR and blood pressure, (Fig 1B). The crude prevalence ratio was highest for those in the severe hypertension category at 2.81 (95% CI: 2.22, 3.54) compared to normotensive (Table 2).

eGFR and CD4 cell count

The proportion with eGFR <60ml/min among those with a CD4 cell count <100 cells/uL was 15.5% (95% CI: 14.6, 16.6) compared to a 10.1% (95% CI: 9.9, 10.3%) among those with a CD4 cell count >500 cells/uL. Additionally, the univariate prevalence ratio among those with CD4 cell count <100 cells/uL was significantly different at 2.10 (95% CI: 1.88, 2.35) compared to those with a CD4 cell count >500 cells/uL (Table 2).

eGFR and antiretroviral therapy regimen

Antiretroviral regimen data was available for 61,447 (89.6%) of which 58,214 (94.5%) received a TDF-containing first line combination, 2,964 (4.8%) received a non-TDF containing first line combination, and 205 (<1%) received a protease inhibitor-containing regimen. Individuals prescribed a non-TDF-containing ART regimen had a significantly lower eGFR with a median of 78.4 compared to those on a TDF-containing ART regimen with a median of 99.8 (Pearson p-value: <0.001). Additionally, we illustrate the decreasing trend in proportion of individuals receiving a TDF-containing ART regimen with decreasing eGFR, with the exception of those with the lowest eGFR category (<15 ml/min/1.73m2) (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Proportion TDF containing regimen by eGFR (CKD-EPI) category.

Fig 2

Changes in eGFR following ART initiation

There were 3,216 individuals in the analysis set with multiple creatinine measures spaced by a median of 210 days (IQR: 133–383 days). The distribution of eGFR measures show substantial heterogeneity across age groups and hypertensive status (Fig 1A and 1B). Among those with multiple eGFR measures the measures at 3–12 months of follow-up and >12 months tended to be higher than the ART initiation/baseline value (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Repeated estimated glomerular filtration rate measures by sex and age.

Fig 3

Notes: Marker size proportional to population size in each category.

Adjusted model results

We calculated mixed effects Poisson regression estimates for eGFR <60ml/min (CKD-EPI) adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, blood pressure category, and CD4 cell count allowing for random effects at the facility level. There was a significant increase in adjusted prevalence of eGFR <60 ml/min associated with sex, age, blood pressure, and CD4 cell count (Table 2). Males were less likely to have a kidney function impairment with an adjusted prevalence ratio of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.79) and those aged 65 years and older had the highest adjusted prevalence ratio at 10.39 (95% CI: 7.88, 13.70) compared to those aged 17–24 years. Blood pressure above 180mmHg systolic or above 120mmHg diastolic (severe hypertension) had the highest adjusted prevalence ratio of 1.64 (95% CI: 1.35, 1.98) followed by hypertension stage II with an adjusted prevalence ratio of 1.23 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.36) compared to normotensive. Low CD4 cell count defined as ≤100 cells/uL had the highest adjusted prevalence ratio of 1.79 (95% CI: 1.53, 2.09) compared to those with a CD4 cell count greater than 500 cells/uL (Table 2).

eGFR across formulae

The Cockcroft-Gault equation resulted the lowest median eGFR at 90.3 ml/min/1.73m2 (IQR: 73.7–110.4ml/min/1.73m2) followed closely by the MDRD-4 equation at 90.7ml/min/1.73m2 (IQR: 75.5–109.7ml/min/1.73m2) and the Mayo Quadratic equation had highest median GFR estimates at 114.3ml/min/1.73m2 (IQR: 103.6–123.1ml/min/1.73m2). Adjustment for race in both the MDRD-4 and CKD-EPI equations significantly change the proportion of those categorized with mild and moderate kidney function impairment (Fig 4 and Table 3). The race adjusted eGFR for moderate kidney function impairment by the MDRD-4 (7.4%, 95% CI: 7.2, 7.6%) and CDK-EPI (5.6%, 95% CI: 5.5, 5.8%) was significantly lower compared to the unadjusted eGFR for MDRD-4 (3.0, 95% CI: 2.9, 3.1%) and CKD-EPI (3.0, 95% CI: 2.9, 3.1%) (Table 3). Using the CKD-EPI formula as the comparator we found heterogeneity in kidney function impairment categorization with the four-variable modification of diet in renal disease with 86.3% agreement (Scott/Fleiss Pi: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.75), followed by the Mayo Quadratic equation with 71.1% agreement (Scott/Fleiss Pi: 0. 26, 95% CI: 0. 25, 0.27) and Cockcroft-Gault with 69.4% agreement (Scott/Fleiss Pi: 0.44, 95% CI: 0. 44, 0.45). The MDRD-4 equation categorizes the majority (51.9%) with an eGFR <90ml/min/1.73m2 while the Mayo categorizes the smallest proportion (11.89%) of individuals with an eGFR <90ml/min/1.73m2 (Fig 5).

Fig 4. Sankey diagram unadjusted and adjusted categorization for the CKD-EPI formula.

Fig 4

Table 3. Count of individuals estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) category by eGFR formula.

eGFR Equation eGFR Category
Normal Mild Moderate Severe Failure
Count Percent (95% CI) Count Percent (95% CI) Count Percent (95% CI) Count Percent (95% CI) Count Percent (95% CI)
CKD-EPI 45,824 62.8 (62.5, 63.2) 22,163 30.4 (30.0, 30.7) 4,107 5.6 (5.5, 5.8) 462 0.6 (0.6, 0.7) 377 0.5 (0.5, 0.6)
CKD-EPI Adj 57,487 78.8 (78.5, 79.1) 12,568 17.2 (17.0, 17.5) 2,178 3.0 (2.9, 3.1) 377 0.5 (0.5, 0.6) 323 0.4 (0.4, 0.5)
MDRD-4 37,293 51.1 (50.8, 51.5) 29,367 40.4 (39.9, 40.6) 5,404 7.4 (7.2, 7.6) 493 0.7 (0.6, 0.8) 376 0.5 (0.5, 0.6)
MDRD-4 Adj 55,880 76.6 (76.3, 76.9) 14,209 19.5 (19.2, 19.8) 2,170 3.0 (2.9, 3.1) 372 0.5 (0.5, 0.6) 302 0.4 (0.4, 0.5)
Mayo 45,815 88.1 (87.9, 88.4) 22,163 8.6 (8.4, 8.8) 4,144 2.2 (2.1, 2.3) 436 0.6 (0.5, 0.7) 375 0.5 (0.5, 0.6)
Cockcroft-Gault 34,066 50.8 (50.4, 51.1) 26,169 39.0 (38.6, 39.4) 6,098 9.1 (8.9, 9.3) 503 0.8 (0.7, 0.8) 294 0.4 (0.4, 0.5)

Note: Percent calculated for equation/row; Adj—indicates adjustment for race.

Fig 5. Distribution of estimated glomerular filtration rates by formula.

Fig 5

Notes: Legend applies to Figs 4A and 4B. Category color corresponds to vertical axis in matrix. Deviation from the diagonal indicates disagreement between the two measures. White in scatter plot indicates density.

Discussion

In this study we found that a substantial proportion (6.9%) of people with HIV initiating ART in Zambia have moderate to severely impaired kidney function. Furthermore, among those ≥50 years old a significant proportion of patients are experiencing kidney failure according to the CKD-EPI equation. We also provide evidence through the observed risk factors that the EMR may be used to aide identification of those with greater likelihood of a reduced eGFR.

The proportion of individuals with an eGFR <60ml/min was 1.7 times greater, though not significantly different, than previous estimates (4.1%, 95% CI: 3.3–7.1%) at 6.9% (95% CI: 6.7–7.1%) [13]. We also show a lower overall median eGFR (CKD-EPI) 99.1 (IQR: 81.4, 115.5) compared to previous work from Deckert et al in the Zambian setting with median eGFR (CKD-EPI) of 108.3 (IQR: 88.8, 118.5) as well as a larger proportion in the mild kidney function impairment category at 19.7% compared to 29.6% (95% CI: 29.2, 29.9% [13]). The median eGFR (per Cockcroft-Gault formula) of 90.5 ml/min/1.73m2 (IQR: 73.7, 110.9) is 5.5ml/min/1.73m2 lower than that reported by Mocroft et al at 96ml/min/1.73m2 (IQR: 82, 111) [36]. Conversely, the proportion of those with severe kidney function impairment (CKD-EPI) presented here is lower at 0.6% compared to 0.9% [13]. As NCD research among the HIV population continues it will be important to track kidney function trends as ART regimens, diet, body mass index, blood pressure, and other population characteristics continue to change. Similarly, though it remains important to screen for TDF suitability and adjust ART regimens to reduce potential added renal stress, additional resources should be provided to monitor individuals receiving ART who are found to have impaired kidney function. We observed parallel decreasing in the proportion of individuals receiving a TDF contain regimen and eGFR category until eGFR<155ml/min/1.73m2. It is possible that some individuals with low eGFR measures presented to the clinic as more ill and were initiated on a TDF-containing first line to avoid any delay in ART initiation and later switched to a non-TDF-containing regimen [37].

Zambia has made considerable progress regarding the UNAIDS 95-95-95 goals including decentralized clinics, differentiated services delivery model incorporation, and progressive HIV testing initiatives [38]. As Zambia continues advancement toward HIV epidemic control it is increasingly important to leverage laboratory measures, used for routine HIV care, to evaluate underlying non-communicable disease. These data serve as evidence that routine data may help jumpstart an understanding of the burden of kidney function impairment as well as guide the response to underlying non-communicable co-morbidities like kidney function impairment and high blood pressure.

During much of the study window (2011–2016) CD4 cell count was a part of routine ART initiation processes and remains an important indicator of HIV progression [2224,39]. The association between kidney function and CD4 cell count aligns with previous work in Tanzania and Zambia [10,40]. It is possible that some observed kidney function impairment, especially severe kidney function impairment, could be related to HIV-associated nephropathy which was estimated to affect 33.5% of those with HIV in Zambia by Fabian et al in 2009 [41].

We calculated both adjusted and unadjusted eGFR using the CKD-EPI and MDRD-4 equations. The race adjusted proportion significantly lower of individuals in the normal, mild, and moderate categories compared to the not race adjusted for both the CKD-EPI and the MDRD-4 formulae. The proportion of those in the severe and kidney failure categories (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73m2 for the race adjusted and not race adjusted CKD-EPI and MDRD-4 equations did not differ significantly. This could have implications for programs seeking to address kidney function impairment depending on the eGFR threshold for referral or renal care.

Previous research has found that Dolutegravir (DTG) may be associated with increased body mass index which may be an important upstream risk factor for kidney function impairment [4244]. Though this analysis is limited to those on a non-DTG-based regimen it provides kidney function measures not confounded by the altered, often reduced, creatinine clearance that might contribute to kidney function misclassification among those on a DTG-containing regimen [45]. As Dolutegravir continues to be rolled out, it will be increasingly important to monitor potential DTG regimen associated risks for increased body mass index, as well as account for the more direct creatinine clearance effects among those receiving a DTG containing ART regimen.

There is a non-trivial amount of missing data in the EMR which may limit its utility as a tool for renal care referral and increased incorporation of routine measures into the Zambia HIV care guidelines. Zambia is in the process of implementing an electronic source documentation system, shifting away from the standard paper file registries, which, we anticipate will have a tremendous impact on data availability. This global push toward digital health records has already occurred in other parts of sub-Saharan Africa and not only helps bridge care geographically but allows clinicians to review analyzed data and bring to the fore potential underlying conditions [4648].

Critical challenges to integrating NCD care at HIV care sites including limited clinic space, over-crowding, and availability of clinical staff to conduct screening and referral might be addressed through the continued uptake and expansion of differentiated HIV service delivery. It might be possible and important to design a differentiated service delivery model for those initiating HIV care with kidney function impairment [21,49,50].

This analysis represents one of the largest examinations of programmatic data on eGFR among those in HIV care in sub-Saharan Africa however, it does have limitations. One such limitation is the level of missing data fields in the electronic medical record. We explored trends in missingness comparing those in the larger parent dataset to those with a creatinine measure and found that missingness for CD4 cell count, body mass index (height and weight) was more common among those missing a creatinine measure however, we did not observe creatinine measure collection be restricted (e.g., advanced illness, older age group, body mass index category) to a subset of those seeking HIV care. The difference in CD4 cell count data is potentially associated with the year of HIV care initiation given that many creatinine measures were collected from 2011–2016, an era when CD4 cell count was part of the ART initiation guidelines (S1 Table). Another limitation is limited medical notes and facility-level clinical context available to understand why some individuals had multiple creatinine measures in the medical record. We compared this subset of individuals in supplemental material (S2 and S3 Tables). Additionally, as we are not able to parse chronic kidney impairment from acute kidney injury (AKI) it is possible that some of those with decreased eGFR measures could be experiencing acute kidney injury and not necessarily indicative of chronic kidney disease. Despite these limitations, we are able, with the routine collection of data for HIV care to evaluate kidney function impairment including significantly associated contributors to decreased eGFR which represents an opportunity to use established infrastructure to address NCDs in Zambia among those initiating HIV care.

In conclusion, using routine serum creatinine measures, we identified a significant minority of PLHIV in Zambia initiating ART with moderate and severe kidney function impairment. Differentiated service delivery models could be a promising model to reinforce referral and kidney function monitoring among those initiating ART with kidney function impairment (eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73m2).

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Scatter plot for eGFR (unadjusted CKD-EPI) and CD4 cell count (cells/mm3) with linear fit line.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Population characteristics by record of creatinine measure.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Population characteristics by record of multiple creatinine measures.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Crude and adjusted Prevalence Ratios (PR) for limited eGFR (<60ml/min/1.73m2).

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Zambian Ministry of Health for making every effort to ensure those in HIV care continued to receive treatment. We would also like to thank the healthcare workers who faithfully delivered care to those receiving HIV care.

Data Availability

The Government of Zambia allows data sharing after a review of data queries ensures the appropriateness of its intended use. To request data access, contact the CIDRZ Ethics and Compliance Committee Chair/Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Roma Chilengi, Roma.chilengi@cidrz.org, or the Secretary to the Committee/Head of Research Operations, Ms. Hope Mwanyungwi, Hope.Mwanyungwi@cidrz.org, mentioning the intended use for the data.

Funding Statement

Funding for this work is provided by the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and Centers for Infectious Disease Research Zambia through a grant awarded to IS (Grant NU2GGH001920). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Eckardt K-U, Coresh J, Devuyst O, Johnson RJ, Köttgen A, Levey AS, et al. Evolving importance of kidney disease: from subspecialty to global health burden. The Lancet. 382(9887):158–69. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60439-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mahmoodi BK, Matsushita K, Woodward M, Blankestijn PJ, Cirillo M, Ohkubo T, et al. Associations of kidney disease measures with mortality and end-stage renal disease in individuals with and without hypertension: a meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2012;380(9854):1649–61. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61272-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lameire NH, Bagga A, Cruz D, De Maeseneer J, Endre Z, Kellum JA, et al. Acute kidney injury: an increasing global concern. The Lancet. 2013;382(9887):170–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60647-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stanifer JW, Jing B, Tolan S, Helmke N, Mukerjee R, Naicker S, et al. The epidemiology of chronic kidney disease in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 2014;2(3):e174–e81. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70002-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bor J, Herbst AJ, Newell ML, Barnighausen T. Increases in adult life expectancy in rural South Africa: valuing the scale-up of HIV treatment. Science. 2013;339(6122):961–5. Epub 2013/02/23. doi: 10.1126/science.1230413 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3860268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Health ZMo. Zambia Consolidated Guidelines for the Treatment and Prevention of HIV Infection. In: Health Mo, editor. 2018.
  • 7.7.3 Monitoring response to ART and the diagnosis of treatment failure [Internet]. World Health Organization: World Health Organization; 2013. Consolidated ARV guidelines, June 2013. Available from: https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/guidelines/arv2013/art/artmonitoring/en/.
  • 8.Bhavsar NA, Appel LJ, Kusek JW, Contreras G, Bakris G, Coresh J, et al. Comparison of Measured GFR, Serum Creatinine, Cystatin C, and Beta-Trace Protein to Predict ESRD in African Americans With Hypertensive CKD. American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 2011;58(6):886–93. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.07.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bikbov B, Purcell CA, Levey AS, Smith M, Abdoli A, Abebe M, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet. 2020;395(10225):709–33. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30045-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mulenga LB, Kruse G, Lakhi S, Cantrell RA, Reid SE, Zulu I, et al. Baseline renal insufficiency and risk of death among HIV-infected adults on antiretroviral therapy in Lusaka, Zambia. AIDS. 2008;22(14):1821–7. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328307a051 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2649719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.George E, Lucas GM, Nadkarni GN, Fine DM, Moore R, Atta MG. Kidney function and the risk of cardiovascular events in HIV-1-infected patients. AIDS. 2010;24(3):387–94. Epub 2009/12/19. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283359253 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2877370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ibrahim F, Hamzah L, Jones R, Nitsch D, Sabin C, Post FA, et al. Baseline kidney function as predictor of mortality and kidney disease progression in HIV-positive patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(4):539–47. Epub 2012/04/24. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2012.03.006 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3657190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Deckert A, Neuhann F, Klose C, Bruckner T, Beiersmann C, Haloka J, et al. Assessment of renal function in routine care of people living with HIV on ART in a resource-limited setting in urban Zambia. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0184766. Epub 2017/09/21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184766 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5607167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fux C, Simcock M, Wolbers M, Bucher HC, Hirschel B, Opravil M, et al. Tenofovir use is associated with a reduction in calculated glomerular filtration rates in the Swiss HIV Cohort. Antiviral Therapy. 2007;12:1165–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gallant JE, Parish MA, Keruly JC, Moore RD. Changes in renal function associated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment, compared with nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor treatment. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40(8):1194–8. Epub 2005/03/26. doi: 10.1086/428840 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Laprise C, Baril J-G, Dufresne S, Trottier H. Association Between Tenofovir Exposure and Reduced Kidney Function in a Cohort of HIV-Positive Patients: Results From 10 Years of Follow-up. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2013;56:568–75. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis937 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Levin A, Tonelli M, Bonventre J, Coresh J, Donner J-A, Fogo AB, et al. Global kidney health 2017 and beyond: a roadmap for closing gaps in care, research, and policy. The Lancet. 2017;390(10105):1888–917. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30788-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Vos T, Barber RM, Bell B, Bertozzi-Villa A, Biryukov S, Bolliger I, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. 2015;386(9995):743–800. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60692-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nulu S. Neglected chronic disease: The WHO framework on non-communicable diseases and implications for the global poor. Glob Public Health. 2017;12(4):396–415. Epub 2016/03/08. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2016.1154584 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dewhurst MJ, Walker RW. Hypertension in Sub-Saharan Africa; prevalence, prescriptions, pitfalls and paradigms. Journal of Human Hypertension. 2015;30(4):221–2. doi: 10.1038/jhh.2015.93 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Roy M, Bolton-Moore C, Sikazwe I, Mukumbwa-Mwenechanya M, Efronson E, Mwamba C, et al. Participation in adherence clubs and on-time drug pickup among HIV-infected adults in Zambia: A matched-pair cluster randomized trial. PLoS Med. 2020;17(7):e1003116. Epub 2020/07/02. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003116 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7329062 following competing interests: EG is a member of PLOS Medicine’s editorial board. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Health ZMo. Zambia Consolidated Guidelines for Treatment and Prevention of HIV Infection. In: Health Mo, editor. 2016.
  • 23.Health ZMo. Zambia Consolidated Guidelines for Treatment and Prevention of HIV Infection. 2013.
  • 24.Health ZMo. Adult and Adolescent Antiretroviral Therapy Protocol 2010. In: Health Mo, editor. 2010.
  • 25.Murata K, Baumann NA, Saenger AK, Larson TS, Rule AD, Lieske JC. Relative performance of the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations for estimating glomerular filtration rate among patients with varied clinical presentations. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6(8):1963–72. Epub 2011/07/09. doi: 10.2215/CJN.02300311 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3156428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron. 1976;16(1):31–41. Epub 1976/01/01. doi: 10.1159/000180580 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rule AD, Larson TS, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Jacobsen SJ, Cosio FG. Using serum creatinine to estimate glomerular filtration rate: accuracy in good health and in chronic kidney disease. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(12):929–37. Epub 2004/12/22. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-12-200412210-00009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(6):461–70. Epub 1999/03/13. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Levey AS. A New Equation to Estimate Glomular Filtration Rate. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.National Kidney F. Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) 2021. [cited 2021 31dec2019]. Available from: https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/gfr. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE Jr., Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension. 2018;71(6):e13–e115. Epub 2017/11/15. doi: 10.1161/HYP.0000000000000065 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.El Karoui K, Boudhabhay I, Petitprez F, Vieira-Martins P, Fakhouri F, Zuber J, et al. Impact of hypertensive emergency and rare complement variants on the presentation and outcome of atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome. Haematologica. 2019;104(12):2501–11. Epub 2019/03/19. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2019.216903 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Oras P, Habel H, Skoglund PH, Svensson P. Elevated Blood Pressure in the Emergency Department: A Risk Factor for Incident Cardiovascular Disease. Hypertension. 2020;75(1):229–36. Epub 2019/12/04. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.14002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.de Havenon A. Blood pressure variability: An emerging target for risk reduction in the setting of hypertensive emergency. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2019;21(11):1693–4. Epub 2019/09/26. doi: 10.1111/jch.13701 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Organization WH. Physical Status: The Use and Interpretation of Antropometry. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland: 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mocroft A, Kirk O, Reiss P, De Wit S, Sedlacek D, Beniowski M, et al. Estimated glomerular filtration rate, chronic kidney disease and antiretroviral drug use in HIV-positive patients. AIDS. 2010;24(11):1667–78. Epub 2010/06/05. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328339fe53 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chen YQ, Masse B, Wang L, Ou SS, Li X, Donnell D, et al. Statistical considerations for the HPTN 052 Study to evaluate the effectiveness of early versus delayed antiretroviral strategies to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV-1 in serodiscordant couples. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(6):1280–6. Epub 2012/07/21. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.07.007 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3468650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bradley H, Rosenberg ES, Holtgrave DR. Data-Driven Goals for Curbing the U.S. HIV Epidemic by 2030. AIDS Behav. 2019;23(3):557–63. Epub 2019/02/24. doi: 10.1007/s10461-019-02442-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Taylor BS, Tieu H-V, Jones J, Wilkin TJ. Topics in Antiviral Medicine. CROI 2019: Antiretroviral Therapy. 2019;27(1). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Msango L, Downs JA, Kalluvya SE, Kidenya BR, Kabangila R, Johnson WD Jr., et al. Renal dysfunction among HIV-infected patients starting antiretroviral therapy. AIDS. 2011;25(11):1421–5. Epub 2011/05/17. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328348a4b1 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3631352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fabian J, Naicker S. HIV and kidney disease in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature Reviews Nephrology. 2009;5(10):591–8. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2009.141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bourgi K, Rebeiro PF, Turner M, Castilho JL, Hulgan T, Raffanti SP, et al. Greater Weight Gain in Treatment-naive Persons Starting Dolutegravir-based Antiretroviral Therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(7):1267–74. Epub 2019/05/18. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz407 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8205610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cindi Z, Maartens G, Bradford Y, Venter WDF, Sokhela S, Chandiwana NC, et al. Genetic Associations with Weight Gain among South Africans who Initiated Dolutegravir-Containing and Tenofovir-Containing Regimens. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2021;87:1002–9. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002661 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ibrahim F, Samarawickrama A, Hamzah L, Vincent R, Gilleece Y, Waters L, et al. Bone mineral density, kidney function, weight gain and insulin resistance in women who switch from TDF/FTC/NNRTI to ABC/3TC/DTG. HIV Medicine. 2021;22(2):83–91. doi: 10.1111/hiv.12961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Capetti AF, Sterrantino G, Cossu MV, Orofino G, Barbarini G, De Socio GV, et al. Switch to Dolutegravir plus Rilpivirine Dual Therapy in cART-Experienced Subjects: An Observational Cohort. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0164753. Epub 2016/10/16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164753 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5065232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Nucita A, Bernava GM, Bartolo M, Masi FDP, Giglio P, Peroni M, et al. A global approach to the management of EMR (electronic medical records) of patients with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: the experience of DREAM software. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2009;9:42–. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-9-42 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Akanbi MO, Ocheke AN, Agaba PA, Daniyam CA, Agaba EI, Okeke EN, et al. Use of Electronic Health Records in sub-Saharan Africa: Progress and challenges. Journal of medicine in the tropics. 2012;14(1):1–6. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ohuabunwa EC, Sun J, Jean Jubanyik K, Wallis LA. Electronic Medical Records in low to middle income countries: The case of Khayelitsha Hospital, South Africa. African Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2016;6(1):38–43. doi: 10.1016/j.afjem.2015.06.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Prust ML, Banda CK, Nyirenda R, Chimbwandira F, Kalua T, Jahn A, et al. Multi-month prescriptions, fast-track refills, and community ART groups: results from a process evaluation in Malawi on using differentiated models of care to achieve national HIV treatment goals. Journal of the International AIDS Society. 2017;20. doi: 10.7448/ias.20.5.21650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Roy M, Bolton Moore C, Sikazwe I, Holmes CB. A Review of Differentiated Service Delivery for HIV Treatment: Effectiveness, Mechanisms, Targeting, and Scale. Current HIV/AIDS Reports. 2019;16(4):324–34. doi: 10.1007/s11904-019-00454-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000124.r001

Decision Letter 0

Siyan Yi, Julia Robinson

23 Sep 2021

PGPH-D-21-00415

Evaluation of kidney function among people living with HIV initiating antiretroviral therapy in Zambia

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Pry,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 07 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Siyan Yi, MD, MHSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article, therefore should be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

i). Please include all sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants (with grant number) or organizations (with url) that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

ii). State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

iii). State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

iv). If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

2. Please ensure that the funders and grant numbers match between the Financial Disclosure field and the Funding Information tab in your submission form. Note that the funders must be provided in the same order in both places as well.

3. Please update the completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist". Otherwise please declare all competing interests beginning with the statement "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:"

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that "De-identified data for this work will be made available upon request.". All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

5. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format only and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file. Please ensure that all files are under our size limit of 20MB.  

For more information about how to convert your figure files please see our guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures

Once you've converted your files to .tif or .eps, please also make sure that your figures meet our format requirements.

6. Tables should not be uploaded as individual files. Please remove these files and include the tables in your manuscript file.

7. We notice that your supplementary figures are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them  with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that all Supporting Information files are included correctly and that each one has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. 

8. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 5 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

9. Please match your Figures' Descriptions with their corresponding file names by renaming them accordingly.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors are to be congratulated on their manuscript entitled ‘Evaluation of kidney function among people living with HIV initiating antiretroviral therapy in Zambia’ which utilises a large national data set to address an important issue of renal disease in people living with HIV in Zambia. These data will add significantly to existing knowledge of the burden of renal impairment in PLWH and its risk factors and will contribute towards an emerging collection of much needed data for national and international non-communicable disease management policies.

There are some aspects which I think, if addressed, could improve the strength of the manuscript.

Major comments

Overall

1. Readers may benefit from a little more information on CIDRZ sites (perhaps there is a reference which can be included for this?). What is particularly important is giving an idea of the types of settings these data cover. Are they general outpatients, specific HIV clinics, inpatient settings, acute emergency care etc?

2. Further to this, it is critical that the reader has a clear understanding of who the included patients are from a clinical point of view. Is each data point one patient initiating ART (as indicated in the title)? Or are the data points from different stages across the HIV disease journey (as inferred in the abstract – “among a cohort of PLHIV with an HIV care visit” and the methods section – “All individuals with an HIV care clinic visit”)? If these are all data points from ART initiation and some are in an acute inpatient setting whilst others are in an outpatient clinic setting, it will be important to note that there may be significant differences within the cohort in terms of clinical disease. For example, those who have their HIV diagnosed as an inpatient may be much more clinically unwell, with sepsis for example, which may affect renal function.

3. The manuscript would benefit from standardisation of the terms used to define the outcome of renal impairment. These change throughout the manuscript which can make it difficult to follow (terms used include: eGFR measures, kidney impairment, moderate kidney function impairment, kidney function impairment, at least moderately impaired kidney function, at least moderately to severely impaired kidney function). Further, it is very important to differentiate between acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease. It will be difficult to do this with data from one time point but this should be discussed, and implications addressed.

4. It would be nice to have an explanation of why the reported formulae were chosen. In particular, I would advise the authors to re-consider the inclusion of measures that adjust for race. There has been much international criticism of the inclusion of race in renal function calculations, arguing that race is a social construct rather than a biological one and including it in biological calculations disadvantages Black African populations.

Background

1. A little more detailed discussion of current knowledge of incidence and prevalence of AKI and CKD in PLWH in SSA would be beneficial

2. It might be useful to understand whether there are guidelines within the CIDRZ facilities for measurement of blood pressure, weight/height and diabetes, or whether these are carried out on an ad hoc basis when there is a clinical concern.

Methods

1. line 114. Why was there a modification to the AHA/ACC hypertension guidelines definition of severe hypertension?

Results

1. Overall, it is a little difficult to grasp the main findings of the study; this section might benefit from a little more focussing of the important messages

2. Line 214 “Obesity was also correlated….”. Please quote the numbers in the text to make this sentence more specific for the reader.

3. Line 215. “There was a substantial amount…”. Please report exactly how much data was missing (it is the vast majority of included participants).

4. Line 217. “.. the data available show a slightly higher proportion of…” It is unclear what is being compared here. Higher proportion than what?

5. Line 217. “Crude prevalence ratio…are very similar”. Again, unclear what is being compared here. Very similar to what? Also need to include the numbers in this sentence.

6. Overall, I would have reservations about reporting the obesity data at all given that it is in such a small proportion of the cohort and is likely to be subject to considerable bias (eg only being measured in those who are clinically unwell).

7. line 236. “There were 3,216 with multiple creatinine measures”. Please clarify 3,216 what. I presume PLWH included in the renal analysis cohort. Although this doesn’t seem to tie in with the earlier assertion that 3209 had multiple measurements?

8. Line 238: “Among those with at least…”. This sentence doesn’t make sense to me. I wonder if it would perhaps help to omit the part that says “Among those with at least two creatinine measures” as it seems to me that this analysis would have been done within the bigger cohort?

9. Line 241: “Among those with multiple eGFR measures at 3-12 months…”. It would be beneficial to have specific numbers here to support the observation. This finding would also make me concerned that (if the overall cohort was indeed from ART initiation timepoint), a lot of what has been observed is due to patients being clinically unwell at ART initiation, which then resolves with treatment and/or ART. This would lead to quite a different overall conclusion for the article if it were the case.

10. Line 247: It might be helpful to include a few words here on what the adjusted models are comparing

11. 248 -258: It's not clear from how this paragraph is phrased that it is reporting the results of an adjusted model. The first sentence could be along the lines of 'a logistic regression model examining cross sectional risk factors for moderate or severe renal impairment was constructed'. Independent risk factors included x,y and z (can list in order of association and give their odds ratios and confidence intervals after each).

Discussion

1. Line 282: “at least moderately to severely impaired kidney function” isn’t quite clear and doesn’t fit with definitions used in rest of text.

2. Line 296: “Our estimates for kidney function are also higher”. It is unclear what this sentence means.

3. Line 308: “chronic kidney disease as we show here”. I would have concerns about this. It is not clear to me that what is being presented in this paper is an assessment of chronic kidney disease (see comments above). This needs to be clarified.

Line 348: “We do not suspect differential bias to be associated with data missingness”. I would have concerns that there might indeed be bias with the risk factor data. Please provide information that would reassure the reader that these data are not biased (as per comment above on explaining local guidelines on weight measurement).

Line 349: “Another limitation is the ….”. This sentence is not clear to me. Is the measurement performed as standard of care, or is it routinely collected as clinical cause/judgement? In particular, is it not likely that those with repeated measurements are subject to clinical judgement?

Line 360: Again, point as above, I’m not sure the data presented in this paper has provided evidence on “those engaged in HIV care at increased risk for chronic kidney disease”.

Tables

Table 1

1. Looking at these data, I wonder what the p values are telling us practically. There are a lot of groups being compared. As a minimum, please insert a footnote with information on what statistical test was used and what it compared.

2. Conversely, there is an extremely high proportion of missingness for weight and diabetes categories and I wonder whether tests of statistical comparison are appropriate here?

3. I find it interesting that approximately half of patients in severe or failure categories are on TDF. This is despite the authors’ explanation that renal function is tested at ART initiation to help decide whether TDF can be given safely. I wonder whether this practice has changed throughout the course of the study. It might be worth a line of explanation on this.

Table 2

1. I find the linear correlation between CD4 T cell count and risk of renal impairment interesting. This could of course be related to acute kidney injury from intercurrent illness, but it might be worth highlighting this in the text rather than, or in addition to, comparing low category with high.

2. It would be beneficial to have a small footnote explaining what the analyses were adjusted for and how the models were constructed. This does not seem to be detailed in the methods section.

Minor comments

Abstract

Methods section should read “across seven of the ten” (instead of or)

Background

Line 89: ‘predictors of kidney impairment’. Can the authors please clarify that they assessed predictors in a longitudinal analysis, rather than cross sectional. If this is cross sectional analysis, can they please change to risk factors or associations?

Methods

line 126: “National Kidney Score”. Please indicate which nation this refers to.

Line 152: Please change to “Multiple imputation was considered where missingness was <30%”

Line 153: Please change to “Categories for BMI are defined according to World Health Organization criteria”.

Line 160: I’m not sure a description of what graphs were made is needed if you need to save words.

Results

Line 186: Please change to Prevalence of Kidney Function Impairment (or alternative standardised outcome term)

Line 190: “Severe impairment and kidney failure”. Perhaps “Severe impairment or kidney failure” might be clearer?

Line 225: Please specify if the protease inhibitor regime is also only first line as for TDF and non-TDF

Line 227: This sentence might read better if medians, IQR and p value were inserted together at the end.

Line 228: “Additionally, we illustrate….”. This sentence is unclear, I’m not sure what is being said here. Please rephrase.

Discussion

Line 285: I’m not sure what is referred to by “screen for TDF tolerance”. Perhaps “TDF suitability” might be a clearer term?

Line 296: There is a missing bracket at the end of the CI figures.

Line 308: I would delete the word “other” from this sentence as HIV is not a non-communicable disease

Line 318: please change effect to affect

Line 322: “As DTG is now a WHO recommended…” This sentence seems incomplete?

Line 329: change contain to containing

Line 332: not sure what is meant by “care referral and incorporation”?

Line 332: the word “is” is repeated

Line 340: “A critical challenge…”. Is this sentence complete? Refer for what?

Line 340: “It is possible with…” It isn’t clear what this sentence is trying to say.

Line 348: “fieldsin” requires a space

Line 351: this sentence is disjointed, please rephrase for clarity.

Acknowledgements

Line 365: You may wish to change received to receive.

Tables

Table 1: Please indicate whether they are all first line regimes or not.

Reviewer #2: 1. What is this manuscript all about?

In this study, they set out to determine the prevalence of kidney dysfunction/kidney failure defined as having moderate kidney dysfunction eGFR<60mL/min (moderate kidney function impairment) in unspecified/different censoring time within years. compare the different criteria for determining estimated glomerular filtration rate and model the predictors of the trajectory of kidney function following initiating of ART based therapy. They had a sample size of 68 534 with 72933 observations. They included anyone with at least baseline creatinine measurement and used mixed effect Poisson model to model moderate dysfunction which was defined as eGFR < 60ml/min/1.73m2.

General comment:

The research needs to be well focused with clearly outlined objectives to achieve. The analysis done and chose of statistical methods do not seem to meet the question they intended to answer and the conclusion made were not supported by data; this was true about the discussion as well. They had a lot of missing data and trivialized that fact in an interest to have a very large sample size. There is more analysis, review and probably effective methodological amendments they need to do to make the work clearer and publishable.

2. Have the authors identified the question and key claims and context in the introduction?

NO, this has not been well done. The research did not have a well-focused question to answer and seemed to be nebulous

3. Have they discussed related research? How does the study fit in the related research?

They have referenced some research but they have not tied in their study well and do not clearly demonstrate how theirs adds knew knowledge or innovation.

4. Do the figures and tables make sense given the results?

The tables may be combined for clarity. They also need a key for statistical methods used for the test of the null hypotheses and are better placed right below the results.

5. Methods and study design. Do the methods make sense and follow appropriate reporting guidelines?

The study design they mentioned was cross-sectional but it appears this was supposed to be a retrospective cohort study. They followed patients that for onset of moderate dysfunction after therapy.

6. Are the conclusions supported by the data and results?

NO, a lot needs to be done to make the manuscript up to standard for publication. They also need to do better in their discussion of the results and it should be done systematically from one result to another in a well-focused manner.

Figures/ tables are clearly presented and correctly labelled

Methods are detailed enough for another researcher can understand

Statistics are sound enough or further analysis is needed

Designs are appropriate for the question being asked or is there need for additional experiments

Are results supporting conclusions and are the data available?

References are missing and the title appropriate for the work done and informative.

Number comments and include page numbers.

MAJOR COMMENTS

They need to clarify how they estimate kidney failure in patients initiating treatment. Also explain if these patients were hospitalized and how they were followed up to determine Kidney Failure. They mentioned a number of endpoints and it made it unclear which one was their primary that they used for powering the study. There was kidney failure in the abstract, there was eGFR<60mL/min/1.73m2 and also moderate kidney dysfunction. How they defined kidney failure needed to come out clearly and at what time points they attempted to observe it.

They need to describe what they used as comparison group in this case and how long after the patient initiated therapy that they had their planned kidney function assessments.

They need to explain how many times those with repeated measurements had these measurements done to warrant the use of mixed effect Poisson methods and how many had more than two repeated measurements. Was there a specific follow up time? if not then others were followed after being treated for longer than others which increased their chances of dysfunction due to concomitant exposure to therapy. Also, there are chances of missing the outcome as the biomarkers stabilize after a long period from injury.

Since they included anyone with a baseline creatinine, and their inferences made on the entire population, they have to explain how they handled the missing follow up results for more than 90% (65000)of their participants.

With the very large sample size, where the observed difference clinically significant? A large sample size like this can show statistical significance that is not clinically significant. It was unclear why they opted for a complete enumeration when they had 3209 with repeated measurements from which they could have randomly sampled their study population and avoided all the missing data. Increasing the sample size may not lead to a different conclusion for a research but it may increase the precision.

There were many missing observations from line (236) of follow up visits more than 90% that was not explained how it was handled. They needlessly attempted to use a very large sample size that gave not extra new information. Mixed methods would be more effective for repeated measure usually more than 2 measures to model the trajectory of an outcome. Logistic regression, cox regression etc would have been better here. Proportional odds ordinal regression for the ordinal outcome on severity of kidney dysfunction.

They needed to focus their objectives; it appeared that they were interested in the predictors of eGR< 60; to finding the trajectory of the eGFR and method comparisons for eGFR formulae. These needed to be tied in well and focused. Respecting the method comparison, what was the reference method that gave the target eGFR?

They need to clarify their inclusion and exclusion criteria and justify that. e.g. did they include those with even those with previous kidney disorders? The enrollment process needs to be more elaborate.

They need a scientific or clinical basis for categorizing the variables such as age, BMI and blood pressure as they did. The arbitrary categorization which may not be linked to the clinical outcome are problematic.

They statistical analysis needs to be revisited or properly justified. They need to clarify whether the assumptions for using the parametric tests were met e.g. was eGFR normally distributed for t-test to be used? t-test, chi-square and mixed effects Poisson. They did not do any model diagnostics and validations to show the AUC, PPV, NPV, sensitivity and specificity of their model. Did not explain well in their methods how they came up with the predictors included in the model. They referred to univariate comparisons to make their inferences without adjusting for confounders.

Tables and figures had to follow. Tables showed be labeled on top and figures below. The information in the table showed be described right above. No key to show what statistical methods were used for the p-values. They did comparisons in the tables among predictors instead of outcomes. Then table 1 and 2 could be condensed into one table.

They mentioned diabetes as one of the covariates but there were no observations for this variable to include in the model (99.99 missing information.

MINOR COMMENTS

The subheadings for the results (line 174) can be put into one paragraph and the tables 1 and 2 can make one table that compares the different independent variables in relation to the outcome i.e. comparing independent variables among those who developed and those who did not develop the outcome. A well labelled table 1 with a key showing appropriate statistical methods used can be made.

A second table can be made from line 236 and address the change in eGFR. This can be to compare the baseline to after therapy and compare among the many dependent variables that can explain the change from baseline. Not comparing independent variables among themselves as in line 240.

It was not clear why the comparisons of the methods from line 263 to 273 were necessary. Why was this being done? These methods already have known differences and applications. They are not bound to give the same results in the first place

Lines 282-4 does not seem to be well backed by the evidence in the tables. It also did not show whether that was significant or whether that was from regression. The same is true about line 291 to 295.

Line 300 the Percents showed be presented with frequencies. e.g. 1/10 is (10%) and so is (100/1000).

The discussion from line 313 to 332 is not focused on the findings from the study or the data.

Recommendations in 341 and 442 are not supported by evidence from data in this paper

347 to 354 Missing data has a lot of chances to cause bias and wrong conclusions especially were the nature of the missingness is linked to the outcome or not by chance. With so much missing data it is not easy do rely on the findings and conclusions. And how do you use Poisson mixed effect models on cross sectional data observed just at baseline and no explanation of what happened to the missing observation and how they were addressed in the study.

. This is true for the entire conclusion section in lines 357 to 361.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Christine Kelly

Reviewer #2: Yes: FREEMAN W. CHABALA

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000124.r003

Decision Letter 1

Siyan Yi, Julia Robinson

9 Jan 2022

Evaluation of kidney function among people living with HIV initiating antiretroviral therapy in Zambia

PGPH-D-21-00415R1

Dear Dr. Pry,

We're pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you'll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you'll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Siyan Yi, MD, MHSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed and the manuscript now reads clearly.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Christine Kelly

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Scatter plot for eGFR (unadjusted CKD-EPI) and CD4 cell count (cells/mm3) with linear fit line.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Population characteristics by record of creatinine measure.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Population characteristics by record of multiple creatinine measures.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Crude and adjusted Prevalence Ratios (PR) for limited eGFR (<60ml/min/1.73m2).

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: review_response-22nov2021.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    The Government of Zambia allows data sharing after a review of data queries ensures the appropriateness of its intended use. To request data access, contact the CIDRZ Ethics and Compliance Committee Chair/Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Roma Chilengi, Roma.chilengi@cidrz.org, or the Secretary to the Committee/Head of Research Operations, Ms. Hope Mwanyungwi, Hope.Mwanyungwi@cidrz.org, mentioning the intended use for the data.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES