4.1 Article

Suicide risk and prevalence of major depressive disorder (MDD) among individuals infected with HIV-1 subtype C versus B in Southern Brazil

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROVIROLOGY
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 789-798

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13365-016-0454-3

关键词

MDD; HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND); HIV-1; HIV-1 subtype B; HIV-1 subtype C; Efavirenz

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [NIH R21 MH76651]
  2. NIMH [P30MH062512]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is among the most prevalent neuropsychiatric disorders associated with HIV infection; however, its risks and neurobiologic correlates in diverse cultures are poorly understood. This study aimed to examine the frequency of MDD among HIV+ participants in southern Brazil. We hypothesized that the frequency and severity of MDD would be higher among individuals with HIV+ compared with HIV- and higher in HIV subtype B compared with C. Individuals with HIV (n = 39) as well as seronegative controls (n = 22) were enrolled in a cross-sectional, prospective, observational study. Current and lifetime history of MDD was diagnosed by MINI-Plus; symptom severity was assessed by Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Current and past episodes of MDD were significantly more frequent in the HIV+ versus HIV- group: current MDD, 15 (38.5 %) vs. 0 (0 %), p = 0.0004; past MDD, 24 (61.5 %) vs. 3 (13.6 %), p = 0.0004. The median BDI-II score in the HIV+ group was significantly higher than that in the HIV- (13 (8-27.5) vs. 2.5 (1-5.5); p < 0.0001). Current suicide risk, defined as during the last month, was found in 18 % of participants in the HIV-positive and none in the HIV-negative group. Neither current MDD frequency (8 (57.1 %) vs. 6 (40 %), p = 0.47) nor BDI-II score differed across subtypes B and C. HIV+ group may be more likely to experience current MDD than HIV-. This was the first study to compare the frequency and severity of MDD in HIV subtypes B and C; we found no difference between HIV subtypes B and C.

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