4.4 Article

Increased Risk of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Patients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Aged 18 to 35 Years A Population-Based Cohort Study

期刊

JAMA OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY
卷 139, 期 3, 页码 251-255

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2013.1709

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chi Mei Medical Center research fund, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Importance: No case series or cohort studies to date in the English literature have evaluated sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSHL) in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Objective: To investigate the risk of developing SSHL in patients with HIV. Design and Setting: Retrospective cohort population-based study using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Participants: In total, 8760 patients with HIV and 43 800 control subjects without HIV were selected from insurance claims between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2006. Main Outcome Measure: The incidence of SSHL was assessed and determined at the end of 2009. Results: Among patients aged 18 to 35 years, the incidence of SSHL was 2.17-fold higher in the HIV group than in the control group (4.32 vs 1.99 per 10 000 person-years, P=.03). The risk of developing SSHL increased with HIV infection; an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.169 (95% CI, 1.071-4.391) was calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Among male patients, the incidence of developing SSHL was 2.23-fold higher(95% CI, 1.06-4.69) in the HIV group than in the control group. The incidence of SSHL did not differ significantly between the HIV group and the control group for patients 36 years or older. Conclusion and Relevance: Human immunodeficiency virus infection is significantly associated with an increased risk of developing SSHL in patients aged 18 to 35 years, particularly among male patients. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013; 139(3): 251-255. Published online February 21, 2013. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2013.1709

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

4.4
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