4.1 Article

E-Selectin and markers of HIV disease severity, inflammation and coagulation in HIV-infected treatment-naive individuals

期刊

AFRICAN HEALTH SCIENCES
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 1066-1075

出版社

MAKERERE UNIV, FAC MED
DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v18i4.28

关键词

E-selectin; inflammation and coagulation in HIV-infected treatment-naive individuals

资金

  1. National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS)
  2. Poliomyelitis Research Foundation of South Africa
  3. Harry Crossley Foundation
  4. Stellenbosch University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: E-selectin has been shown to play a role in atherosclerosis and to be increased in HIV-infected individuals due to chronic immune activation. There is a paucity of studies on E-selectin in HIV-infected treatment-naive individuals. Objectives: This study aimed to determine whether E-selectin levels were increased in HIV-infected treatment-naive individuals and whether these correlated with markers of disease severity, inflammation and coagulation to determine if this population is at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Methods: E-selectin levels were determined in 114 HIV-infected treatment-naive and 66 HIV-negative individuals, compared between groups and correlated with markers of disease severity, inflammation and coagulation. Results: There were statistically significant differences (p<0.01) in levels of WCC, CD4(+) count, %CD38/8, albumin, IgG, hsCRP and D-dimer between groups and no statistically significant differences in E-selectin (p=0.84) and fibrinogen (p=0.65) levels. E-selectin correlated with age (p=0.02) and gender (p=0.01). Conclusion: E-selectin was a poor marker in this setting. There was no correlation with any of the markers of disease severity, inflammation and coagulation. E-selectin is most likely raised in an acute inflammatory setting, rather than chronic stage of HIV-infection. We recommend that other markers be utilized to identify patients at increased risk of CVD; as these were significandy increased untreated in individuals.

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