4.6 Article

Changing Mortality Profile among HIV-Infected Patients in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Shifting from AIDS to Non-AIDS Related Conditions in the HAART Era

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059768

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq)
  2. Research Funding Agency of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: We describe temporal trends in the mortality rates and factors associated with AIDS and non-AIDS related mortality at the Evandro Chagas Clinical Research Institute (IPEC), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ). Methods: Adult patients enrolling from 1986 through 2009 with a minimum follow up of 60 days were included. Vital status was exhaustively checked using patients' medical charts, through active contact with individuals and family members and by linkage with the Rio de Janeiro Mortality database using a previously validated algorithm. The CoDe protocol was used to establish the cause of death. Extended Cox proportional hazards models were used for multivariate modeling. Results: A total of 3530 individuals met the inclusion criteria, out of which 868 (24.6%) deceased; median follow up per patient was 3.9 years (interquartile range 1.7-9.2 years). The dramatic decrease in the overall mortality rates was driven by AIDS-related causes that decreased from 9.19 deaths/100PYs n 1986-1991 to 1.35/100PYs in 2007-2009. Non-AIDS related mortality rates remained stable overtime, at around 1 death/100PYs. Immunodeficiency significantly increased the hazard of both AIDS-related and non-AIDS-related causes of death, while HAART use was strongly associated with a lower hazard of death from either cause. Conclusions: Our results confirm the remarkable decrease in AIDS-related mortality as the HIV epidemic evolved and alerts to the conditions not traditionally related to HIV/AIDS which are now becoming more frequent, needing careful monitoring.

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

4.6
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