4.7 Article

Risk of Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy in the Combination Antiretroviral Therapy Era in the French Hospital Database on Human Immunodeficiency Virus (ANRS-C4)

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 67, 期 2, 页码 275-282

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy074

关键词

progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy; geographic origin; combination antiretroviral therapy; injection drug use; hepatitis C virus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Risk factors for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) in individuals with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are poorly documented in the era of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). Methods. We studied HIV-1-infected individuals aged >= 15 years who had no history of PML and were prospectively followed up between 1997 and 2011 in the French Hospital Database on HIV (FHDH-ANRS CO4) cohort. Cox models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), focusing on sub-Saharan origin, suggested to be protective, and recent cART initiation, potentially associated with an increased risk of PML. Results. PML developed in 555 individuals, in 57 during the first 6 months of cART. From 1997-2000 to 2009-2011, the incidence fell from 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], .98-1.31) to 0.49 (.37-.61) per 1000 person-years. Sub-Saharan African origin had no clear influence (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, .58-1.11). Compared with men who have sex with men, injection drug users (IDUs) were at higher risk (HR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.32-2.45] for male and 1.68 [1.13-2.48] for female IDUs). When IDUs were excluded, hepatitis C virus seropositivity was associated with an increased risk (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.02-1.93). Compared with no cART initiation, initiation < 6 months previously was associated with PML onset (HR, 4.91; 95% CI, 2.42-9.95). Conclusions. Recent cART initiation is associated with an increased risk of PML, as are injection drug use and hepatitis C virus seropositivity. Sub-Saharan African origin had no protective effect.

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

4.7
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