4.7 Article

Influence of Adherent and Effective Antiretroviral Therapy Use on Human Papillomavirus Infection and Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Women

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 201, 期 5, 页码 681-690

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/650467

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The impact of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) on the natural history of human papillomavirus (HPV) remains uncertain following conflicting reports. Prior studies, however, did not consider patients' adherence to their regimens or HAART effectiveness (viral suppression). Methods. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive women (N = 286) who initiated HAART during follow-up in a prospective cohort were assessed semiannually for HPV infection (by polymerase chain reaction) and squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs). Adherence was defined as use of HAART as prescribed >= 95% of the time, and effective HAART was defined as suppression of HIV replication. The prevalence, incident detection, and clearance of HPV infection and/or SILs before versus after HAART initiation were compared (using women as their own comparison group). Results. HAART initiation among adherent women was associated with a significant reduction in prevalence (odds ratio, 0.60 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.44-0.81]; P = .001), incident detection of oncogenic HPV infection (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49 [95% CI, 0.30-0.82]; P = .006), and decreased prevalence and more rapid clearance of oncogenic HPV-positive SILs (HR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.07-5.18]; P = .03). Effects were smaller among nonadherent women. The associations of HPV infection and/or SILs with HAART effectiveness were fairly similar to those with HAART adherence. Conclusion. Effective and adherent HAART use is associated with a significantly reduced burden of HPV infection and SILs; this may help explain why rates of cervical cancer have not increased during the HAART era, despite greater longevity.

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