4.0 Review

Prevalence of oral candidiasis in HIV/AIDS children in highly active antiretroviral therapy era. A literature analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STD & AIDS
卷 26, 期 9, 页码 625-632

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0956462414548906

关键词

Oral candidiasis; HIV; AIDS; treatment; opportunistic infection; children; highly active antiretroviral therapy; oral lesions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highly active antiretroviral therapy has decreased the morbidity and mortality related to HIV infection, including oral opportunistic infections. This paper offers an analysis of the scientific literature on the epidemiological aspects of oral candidiasis in HIV-positive children in the combination antiretroviral therapy era. An electronic databases search was made covering the highly active antiretroviral therapy era (1998 onwards). The terms used were oral lesions, oral candidiasis and their combination with highly active antiretroviral therapy and HIV/AIDS children. The following data were collected from each paper: year and country in which the investigation was conducted, antiretroviral treatment, oral candidiasis prevalence and diagnostic parameters (clinical or microbiological). Prevalence of oral candidiasis varied from 2.9% in American HIV-positive children undergoing highly active antiretroviral therapy to 88% in Chilean HIV-positive children without antiretroviral therapy. With respect to geographical location and antiretroviral treatment, higher oral candidiasis prevalence in HIV-positive children on combination antiretroviral therapy/antiretroviral therapy was reported in African children (79.1%) followed by 45.9% reported in Hindu children. In HIV-positive Chilean children on no antiretroviral therapy, high oral candidiasis prevalence was reported (88%) followed by Nigerian children (80%). Oral candidiasis is still frequent in HIV-positive children in the highly active antiretroviral therapy era irrespective of geographical location, race and use of antiretroviral therapy.

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

4.0
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