2016
DOI: 10.4172/2155-6113.1000627
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Results from a Method for Estimating HIV Incidence Based on the First Cd4 Count among Treatment-Naïve Cases: Brazil, 2004-2013

Abstract: Background: This paper introduces a method to estimate HIV incidence in Brazil using surveillance data. The interest is to estimate the annual lag (time from infection to reporting) distribution among incident cases in a given year with observations arising from a right truncated version of the distribution.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
14
2
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
1
14
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The Global Burden of Disease Study (Wang et al, 2016) assumes a slowly increasing epidemic trend similar to that of UNAIDS, also with a lower number of new infections (33,790, 95% CI 30,200–37,520 in 2015) but yielding an estimate of 558,840 (95% CI 454,380–687,400) PLHIV, lower than the official number of PLHIV linked to care (Pascom et al, 2017). Our estimates of incidence between 2004 and 2010 are higher than those published by Szwarcwald et al which are generated using a single surveillance database, however estimates do overlap in more recent years (Szwarcwald et al, 2016a). Using a phenomenological approach allows us to be agnostic about the incidence trends and the spline is not constrained with prior beliefs about the changing impact of the AIDS programme.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The Global Burden of Disease Study (Wang et al, 2016) assumes a slowly increasing epidemic trend similar to that of UNAIDS, also with a lower number of new infections (33,790, 95% CI 30,200–37,520 in 2015) but yielding an estimate of 558,840 (95% CI 454,380–687,400) PLHIV, lower than the official number of PLHIV linked to care (Pascom et al, 2017). Our estimates of incidence between 2004 and 2010 are higher than those published by Szwarcwald et al which are generated using a single surveillance database, however estimates do overlap in more recent years (Szwarcwald et al, 2016a). Using a phenomenological approach allows us to be agnostic about the incidence trends and the spline is not constrained with prior beliefs about the changing impact of the AIDS programme.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 80%
“…The findings suggest there has been a second wave of infections since 2001 which has been stabilising since 2010, contradicting previous estimates and official positions on the HIV incidence trends in Brazil (AIDSinfo, 2019; IHME, 2017; Szwarcwald et al, 2016a). This second peak has been speculated upon, given the disproportionately high incidence of infection recently reported in men, but this is the first time compelling evidence has been presented for it (Szwarcwald et al, 2016b; de Castro et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 65%
“…Even though our sample is different from the one in 2009, our findings move in the same direction as other sources of information. [ 2 , 44 , 45 ]…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8 A exemplo do observado neste estudo, outros estudos em corroboram com os dados indicando, da mesma forma, o aumento do número de casos a população masculina. 7,[15][16][17] Apesar da razão de sexo ser inferior ao dado nacional, observa-se no oeste catarinense o aumento nos casos em homens para cada mulher, nos últimos anos, com razão de sexos de 1,40 em 2013, 1,58 em 2014 e, 1,86 homens para cada mulher em 2015, o que remete à discussão da estabilização da detecção de novos casos entre as mulheres e o crescimento entre os homens, convergente ao observado em outras regiões brasileiras. 18,19 Chama atenção a tendência estatisticamente signi-34,8/100mil pessoas/ano e segunda onda de infecções a partir de 2001, com crescimento de mais de 50% nas taxas para ambos os sexos.…”
Section: Discussionunclassified