4.7 Article

Impact of the immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) on mortality and morbidity in HIV-infected patients in Mexico

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 E408-E414

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2011.02.007

关键词

IRIS; Mortality; HAART; HIV; Mexico

资金

  1. NIH [1 U01 AI069923]
  2. Central and South America Network for HIV Research,
  3. US National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  4. Pfizer
  5. Johnson Johnson
  6. Merck Sharp Dohme
  7. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  8. Abbot
  9. Tibotec
  10. Roche
  11. Boehringer Ingelheim
  12. Stendhal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To estimate the impact of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) on morbidity and mortality in patients starting highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Methods: A retrospective cohort study of HIV-positive patients starting HAART was conducted at a tertiary care referral center in Mexico City. We estimated the incidence of IRIS, hospitalizations and death rates during the first 2 years of HAART. The relative risk of death (RR) and hospitalization for patients with IRIS were adjusted for relevant covariates using regression methods. Results: During the 2-year follow-up period, 27% of patients developed IRIS (14 IRIS cases per 100 person-years). The relative risk of death among patients who developed IRIS was 3 times higher (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19-7.65, p = 0.03). After adjusting for previous opportunistic infections we still observed a higher death rate among patients with IRIS (RR 2.3, 95% CI 0.9-5.9, p = 0.09). An effect modification of IRIS over mortality was observed by previous opportunistic infection. Conclusions: IRIS-associated mortality is strongly confounded by previous opportunistic infection. Patients with AIDS who eventually developed IRIS had the highest risk of death at the 2-year follow-up. (C) 2011 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