4.7 Article

Lower respiratory tract infections among human immunodeficiency virus-exposed, uninfected infants

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 E176-E182

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2010.01.006

关键词

HIV-exposed; Infancy; Infections; Latin America

资金

  1. NICHD [N01-HD-3-3345, HHSN267200800001C, N01-DK-8-0001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate whether maternal HIV disease severity during pregnancy is associated with an increased likelihood of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in HIV-exposed, uninfected infants. Methods: HIV-exposed, uninfected, singleton, term infants enrolled in the NISDI Perinatal Study, with birth weight >2500 g were followed from birth until 6 months of age. LRTI diagnoses, hospitalizations, and associated factors were assessed. Results: Of 547 infants, 103 (18.8%) experienced 116 episodes of LRTI (incidence = 0.84 LRTIs/100 child-weeks). Most (81%) episodes were bronchiolitis. Forty-nine (9.0%) infants were hospitalized at least once with an LRTI. There were 53 hospitalizations (45.7%) for 116 LRTI episodes. None of these infants were breastfed. The odds of LRTI in infants whose mothers had CD4% <14 at enrollment were 4.4 times those of infants whose mothers had CD4% >= 29 (p = 0.003). The odds of LRTI in infants with a CD4+ count (cells/ mm(3)) <750 at hospital discharge were 16.0 times those of infants with CD4+ >= 750 (p = 0.002). Maternal CD4+ decline and infant hemoglobin at the 6-12 week visit were associated with infant LRTIs after 6-12 weeks and before 6 months of age. Conclusions: Acute bronchiolitis is common and frequently severe among HIV-exposed, uninfected infants aged 6 months or less. Lower maternal and infant CD4+ values were associated with a higher risk of infant LRTIs. Further understanding of the immunological mechanisms of severe LRTIs is needed. (C) 2010 International Society for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据