4.1 Article

Factors associated with deaths from suicide in a French nationwide HIV-infected cohort

期刊

HIV MEDICINE
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 551-558

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hiv.12633

关键词

Dat'AIDS cohort; suicide; suicide mortality; HIV; psychological morbidity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesPeople living with HIV (PLHIV) are at a higher risk of dying by suicide than the general population. Epidemiological data regarding determinants of suicide in PLHIV are scarce. The aim of this study was thus to study demographic, socio-economic, psychiatric history and immunovirological characteristics associated with death from suicide in the French multicenter Dat'AIDS cohort, from January 2000 to July 2013. MethodsThis was a nested case-control study. All deceased PLHIV during the study period who died by suicide and whose medical files could be checked were included as cases. Controls were selected using incidence density sampling. For each case, up to four controls were selected among all actively followed PLHIV at the index date (date of death of cases). Controls were matched for time from HIV diagnosis (5-year periods) and clinical centre. ResultsSeventy cases and 279 controls were included in the study. By multivariable analysis, the factors significantly associated with death from suicide were: not having children, active or substituted drug consumption, alcohol intake > 20 g/day or history of alcohol abuse, history of depressive disorder and/or of attempted suicide, and psychotropic drug intake. Conversely, age, gender, country of birth, positive HCV serology and HIV-related factors, such as AIDS status, use of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), nadir and current CD4 counts and HIV viral load, were not significantly associated with the risk of death from suicide. ConclusionsIn the cART era, HIV-related factors are not associated with a higher risk of suicide mortality. Suicide prevention measures should target PLHIV with the psychological morbidities observed in our cohort.

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