4.4 Review

HIV-1 infection and cognitive impairment in the cART era: a review

期刊

AIDS
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 561-575

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283437f9a

关键词

cART-era; cognitive impairment; HIV-1

资金

  1. ZonMW the Netherlands organization for health research and development [300020007]
  2. Dutch Aids Fonds
  3. Abbott
  4. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  5. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  6. F. Hoffmann-La Roche
  7. Gilead
  8. GlaxoSmithKline
  9. Merck
  10. Sharp
  11. Dohme, Tibotec/Janssen-Cilag
  12. Gilead Sciences
  13. ViiV Healthcare
  14. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the introduction of combination antiretroviral therapy AIDS dementia complex or HIV-associated dementia, as it was termed later, largely disappeared in clinical practice. However, in the past few years, patients, long-term infected and treated, including those with systemically well controlled infection, started to complain about milder memory problems and slowness, difficulties in concentration, planning, and multitasking. Neuropsychological studies have confirmed that cognitive impairment occurs in a substantial (15-50%) proportion of patients. Among HIV-1-infected patients cognitive impairment was and is one of the most feared complications of HIV-1 infection. In addition, neurocognitive impairment may affect adherence to treatment and ultimately result in increased morbidity for systemic disease. So what may be going on in the CNS after so many years of apparently controlled HIV-1 infection is an urgent and important challenge in the field of HIV medicine. In this review we summarize the key currently available data. We describe the clinical neurological and neuropsychological findings, the preferred diagnostic approach with new imaging techniques and cerebrospinal fluid analysis. We try to integrate data on pathogenesis and finally discuss possible therapeutic interventions. (C) 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

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