4.4 Article

Chronic renal failure among HIV-1-infected patients

Journal

AIDS
Volume 21, Issue 9, Pages 1119-1127

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3280f774ee

Keywords

serum creatinine; antiretrovirals; kidney function

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The role of exposure to antiretrovirals in chronic renal failure (CRF) is not well understood. Glomerular filtration rates (GFR) are estimated using the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) or Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equations. Methods: Baseline was arbitrarily defined as the first recorded GFR; patients with two consecutive GFR <= 60ml/min per 1.73m(2) were defined as having CRF. Logistic regression was used to determine odds ratio (OR) of CRF at baseline. ART exposure (yes/no or cumulative exposure) prior to baseline was included in multivariate models (adjusted for region of Europe, age, prior AIDS, CD4 cell count nadir, viral load, hypertension and use of nephrotoxic anti-infective therapy). Results: Using CG, the median GFR at baseline (n=4474) was 94.4 (interquartile range, 80.5-109.3); 158 patients (3.5%) had CRF. Patients with CRF were older (median, 61.9 versus 43.1 years), had lower CD4 cell count nadirs (median, 80 versus 137cells/mu l), and were more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS (44.3 versus 30.4%), diabetes (16.5 versus 4.3%) or hypertension (53.8 versus 26.4%), all P< 0.001. In a multivariate model any use of indinavir [odds ratio (OR) 2.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.62-3.831 or tenofovir (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.25-3.81) was associated with increased odds of CRF, as was cumulative exposure to indinavir (OR, 1.15 per year of exposure; 95% CI, 1.06-1.25) or tenofovir (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20-2.15). Highly consistent results were seen using the MDRD formula. Conclusions: Among antiretrovirals, only exposure to indinavir or tenofovir was associated with increased odds of CRF. We used a confirmed low GFR to define CRF to increase the robustness of our analysis, although there are several potential biases associated with this cross-sectional analysis. (C) 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available