Virological Suppression and its Predictors Among HIV/AIDS Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy in Ethiopia: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Achieving viral load suppression is crucial for the prevention of complications and deaths related to HIV infection. Ethiopia has embraced the worldwide 95-95-95 target, but there is no national representative information regarding virological suppression. Therefore, this review aims to determine the pooled virological suppression rate and identify the pooled effect of contributing factors of viral suppression for HIV-positive patients on antiretroviral therapy in Ethiopia. Methods We systematically searched websites and databases, including online repositories, to obtain primary studies. Two reviewers assessed the quality of the included articles using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale appraisal checklist. Publication bias was checked using Egger's regression test, the heterogeneity of the studies was assessed using I2 statistics and Q statistics, and a sensitivity analysis was performed to identify any outlier results in the included studies. The Der Simonian Laird random-effects model was used to estimate the overall proportion of viral suppression, and STATA 17 statistical software was used for all types of analysis. Results A total of 21 eligible articles primarily conducted in Ethiopia using HIV program data were used for this quantitative synthesis. The overall pooled virological suppression rate was 71% (95% CI, 64%–77%). The pooled effects of poor adherence to ART (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.28–0.40), body mass index (18.5–24.9 kg/m2; AOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.37–2.36), disclosure (AOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05–1.89), absence of opportunistic infection (AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.43–1.97), and high baseline viral load count (AOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52–0.81) were identified as significant predictors of viral suppression. Conclusions The overall pooled percentage of virological suppression was low compared with the global target of viral suppression and the Ethiopian Public Health Institute report. Poor adherence, normal body mass index, disclosure, absence of opportunistic infection, and high baseline viral load count were factors contributing to viral suppression in Ethiopia. Responsible stakeholders should maximize their efforts to achieve the global target of virological suppression by addressing significant predictors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".