Table 1.
Prevalence and determinants of virological failure on ART among PLWH
| Variables | VL ≥ 1000 copies/ml | Total N | ORu | ORm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virologic failure n = 2156 (rate, n/N%) | ||||
| Socio-demographics | ||||
| Gender | ||||
| Female | 710 (36.90) | 1925 | 1.0(ref) | 1.0(ref) |
| Male | 1446 (44.70) | 3232 | 1.39 (1.23–1.56)*** | 1.25 (1.03–1.50)*** |
| Age | ||||
| ≤ 15 | 172 (48.86) | 352 | 1.0 (Ref.) | |
| 15 ~ 40 | 1423 (41.45) | 3433 | 0.74 (0.59–0.92) *** | |
| >40 | 533 (40.94) | 1302 | 0.72 (0.57–0.92) *** | – |
| Unknown | 28 (40.00) | 70 | – | |
| Occupation | ||||
| Employed | 37 (34.91) | 106 | 1.0 (Ref.) | |
| Peasant | 1736 (41.85) | 4148 | 1.34 (0.90–2.01) | |
| Students and children | 136 (46.74) | 291 | 1.64 (1.03–2.60)** | – |
| Unknown | 247 (40.36) | 612 | – | |
| Current marital status | ||||
| Married | 1406 (41.80) | 3366 | 1.0 (Ref.) | |
| Single | 428 (45.77) | 934 | 1.18 (1.02–1.36) ** | |
| Widowed or Divorced | 99 (35.87) | 276 | 0.78 (0.60–1.01)* | – |
| Unknown | 223 (38.38) | 581 | – | |
| Ethnicity | (0.00) | |||
| Yi | 2137 (41.70) | 5125 | 1.0 (Ref.) | |
| Han and others | 19 (59.38) | 32 | 2.04 (1.01–4.15)** | – |
| Education level | ||||
| Illiteracy | 1339 (42.58) | 3145 | 1.0 (Ref.) | 1.0 (Ref.) |
| Primary school | 581 (40.77) | 1425 | 0.93 (0.82–1.05)* | 0.77 (0.66–0.89)** |
| Secondary or above | 70 (38.67) | 181 | 0.85 (0.63–1.16) | 0.69 (0.46–1.04) |
| Unknown | 166 (40.89) | 406 | – | |
| HIV transmission route | ||||
| Heterosexual behaviors | 715 (37.10) | 1927 | 1.0 (Ref.) | 1.0 (Ref.) |
| Drug injection | 747 (43.08) | 1734 | 1.28 (1.12–1.47)*** | 1.12 (0.93–1.35) |
| Heterosexual behaviors and drug injection | 325 (49.02) | 663 | 1.63 (1.36–1.95) *** | 1.44 (1.15–1.82)** |
| Mother to child | 163 (48.95) | 333 | 1.63 (1.29–2.05) *** | 1.58 (1.21–2.08)** |
| Others and unknown | 206 (41.20) | 500 | – | – |
| The first CD4+counts, counts/ul | ||||
| ≤ 200 | 346 (46.82) | 739 | 1.0 (Ref.) | |
| 200 ~ 500 | 986 (41.29) | 2388 | 0.80 (0.68–0.94)** | |
| >500 | 646 (40.68) | 1588 | 0.78 (0.65–0.93)** | – |
| Unknown | 178 (40.27) | 442 | – | |
| Stage of disease | ||||
| HIV | 784 (37.44) | 2094 | 1.0 (Ref.) | 1.0 (Ref.) |
| AIDS | 985 (44.49) | 2214 | 1.34 (1.19–1.51) *** | 1.35 (1.17–1.55)*** |
| Unknown | 387 (45.58) | 849 | – | |
| HIV-related behaviors | ||||
| Needle sharing | ||||
| Had never used illicit drugs and shared the needle | 1001 (39.03) | 2565 | 1.0 (Ref.) | 1.0 (Ref.) |
| Had shared needle for 1 ~ 4 times | 519 (43.43) | 1195 | 1.20 (1.04–1.38)** | 1.34 (1.09–1.65)** |
| Had shared needle ≥5 times | 421 (48.00) | 877 | 1.44 (1.24–1.68) *** | 1.52 (1.21–1.91)*** |
| Unknown | 215 (41.35) | 520 | – | |
| Number of casual sexual partners | ||||
| 0 | 1089 (42.51) | 2562 | 1.0 (Ref.) | |
| 1 ~ 4 | 508 (38.99) | 1303 | 0.86 (0.75–0.99)** | |
| ≥ 5 | 344 (44.56) | 772 | 1.09 (0.92–1.28) | – |
| Unknown | 215 (41.35) | 520 | – | |
| History of sexually transmitted diseases except for HIV | ||||
| Never | 1494 (42.53) | 3513 | 1.0 (Ref.) | |
| Ever | 100 (38.46) | 260 | 0.85 (0.65–1.09) | – |
| ART related information | ||||
| Time of ART | ||||
| < 12 | 304 (43.55) | 698 | 1.0 (Ref.) | 1.0 (Ref.) |
| 12 ~ 36 | 682 (40.38) | 1689 | 0.88 (0.73–1.05)* | 0.72 (0.60–0.92)** |
| > 36 | 728 (40.00) | 1820 | 0.86 (0.72–1.03)* | 0.66 (0.53–0.83)*** |
| Unknown | 442 (46.53) | 950 | – | |
| Initial regimen of ART | ||||
| TDF + 3TC + EFV/NVP | 1202 (39.97) | 3007 | 1.0 (Ref.) | |
| AZT + 3TC + EFV/NVP | 444 (44.36) | 1001 | 1.20 (1.04–1.38)** | |
| LPV/r + 3TC + AZT/TDF | 48 (33.33) | 144 | 0.75 (0.53–1.07)* | |
| Unknown | 462 (45.97) | 1005 | – | = |
| Replacement of ART regimen | ||||
| Never | 1535 (40.16) | 3822 | 1.0 (Ref.) | 1.0 (Ref.) |
| Ever | 181 (46.65) | 388 | 1.30 (1.06–1.61)** | 1.48 (1.12–1.96)** |
ORu univariate odds ratios, ORm multivariate odds ratios, CI confidence interval, TDF tenofovir, 3TC lamivudine, NVP nevirapine, EFV efavirenz, AZT Zidovudine, LPV/r fosamprenavir/ritonavir
Variables with p < 0.2 in the univariate analysis as candidates were selected by a summary multiple logistic regression model
*P value< 0.2; **P value< 0.05; ***P value< 0.001