4.1 Article

Determinants of virological failure after 1 year's antiretroviral therapy in Vietnamese people with HIV: findings from a retrospective cohort of 13 outpatient clinics in six provinces

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
卷 90, 期 7, 页码 538-544

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2013-051353

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective This study examines the proportions and causes of virological failure after one year of antiretroviral therapy (ART) among people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Vietnam. It also evaluates the positive predictive value (PPV) of immunological criteria to detect treatment failure. Method A retrospective cohort of 3449 people with HIV who started ART between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2009 in 13 outpatient clinics in Vietnam was studied. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to calculate crude and adjusted ORs and 95% CIs for associations between patient characteristics and virological failure. Results An estimated 6.5% (226/3449) of HIV patients in the participating clinics in Vietnam had confirmed virological failure one year after the start of ART. After adjusting for other factors, patients with a baseline CD4 count of 50-100 cells/mm(3) and 101-200 cells/mm(3) were statistically significantly less likely to have virological failure, compared to those with a baseline CD4 count lower than 50 cells/mm(3) (OR= 0.61, 95% CI 0.23-0.89; and OR= 0.43, 0.18-0.78, respectively). In contrast, patients with a history of injecting drug use were statistically significantly more likely to have viraemia than otherwise (OR= 1.32, 1.16-1.67). The PPV of the WHO immunological criteria was 60.1% (57.1-69.3%). Conclusions Routine viral load tests should be conducted early to detect virological failure and prevent unnecessary changes to second-line treatments. To improve treatment outcomes, timely ART initiation and adherence to treatment among those with history of injecting drug use should be promoted.

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

4.1
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