Comparison of several two-steps (6 and 12 months) algorithms for early outcome determination.

a<p>As reported by Mumba 2010, “algorithm C”: includes deaths as treatment failures and patients with incomplete follow-up;</p>b<p>Same algorithm tested with our dataset including only laboratory-confirmed outcomes. LR: Likelihood ratio. False cured: fraction of patients that are wrongly classified as cured by the algorithm.</p

Study profile: selection of study patients.

<p>Patients from 12 Médecins Sans Frontières sites in Uganda, Sudan, Angola, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo and Democratic Republic of Congo, 1995–2006. ^a Among these 906 exclusions there are 125 patients that relapsed before 6 months (hence falling out of the scope of this study); ^b Tolerance window up to 9 months.</p

Evolution of the CSF leucocytes count by final treatment outcome, by treatment group and overall.

<p>CSF leucocytes count expressed as the median and interquartile range (IQR). Cohort of 1822 patients having a leukocytes count performed at 6 months and not relapsing at 6 months or earlier, who had a complete follow-up. Values at month 0 are pre-treatment measurements. The number of patients per group is shown at each time point. Dotted lines are used to signify that samples over time contain some different patients.</p

Performance of different cut-off values of CSF leucocytes count at 6 months for the detection of relapse.

<p>Performance of different cut-off values of CSF leucocytes count at 6 months for the detection of relapse.</p

Baseline characteristics of patients included in each analysis.

<p>First analysis: leukocytes at 6 months, excluding relapses at 6 months; Second analysis: leukocytes at 6 months, including relapses at 6 months, two-step algorithms. Combination treatment: within this selected cohort, it included melarsoprol-eflornithine, nifurtimox-eflornithine and melarsoprol-nifurtimox combinations. Coma score: Glasgow Coma Scale assessing the level of consciousness. Interpretation: 3–8 = severe impairment; 9–12 = moderate impairment; 13–14 = mild impairment; 15 = normal <a href="http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001662#pntd.0001662-Teasdale1" target="_blank">[13]</a>; Karnofsky index <a href="http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001662#pntd.0001662-Mor1" target="_blank">[14]</a>.</p

Conditions to be fulfilled to obtain unbiased estimates.

<p>Conditions to be fulfilled to obtain unbiased estimates.</p

Methods to correct survival estimates.

<p>Methods to correct survival estimates.</p

Relative mortality estimated with Poisson regression on uncorrected or corrected data.

<p>Three different weightings were considered for correction: Weight 1 = 1, Weight 2 = the inverse of the proportion of LFU patients who were traced and had their vital status ascertained, Weight 3 = the inverse of the time-specific proportion of them.</p><p>All the values are expressed as mortality ratios [95% confidence interval].</p

Patient characteristics and mortality among lost to follow-up and non-lost-to-follow-up patients.

<p>All values are expressed as number (percentage) but “Age at ART initiation” expressed as Median [Interquartile range].</p><p>*Pearson chi-square test was used for binary covariates and Student t-test for continuous covariates.</p

Estimated mortality rates and their 95% confidence intervals (per 1000 person-years).

<p>Mortality rates were estimated using a Poisson model, Kenyan DHS data [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0130387#pone.0130387.ref022" target="_blank">22</a>], and external data on the proportion of AIDS-related deaths [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0130387#pone.0130387.ref023" target="_blank">23</a>,<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0130387#pone.0130387.ref024" target="_blank">24</a>].</p><p>Estimated mortality rates and their 95% confidence intervals (per 1000 person-years).</p