4.4 Article

Male sex and the risk of mortality among individuals enrolled in antiretroviral therapy programs in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

AIDS
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 417-425

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328359b89b

关键词

Africa; antiretroviral therapy; HIV; men; meta-analysis; mortality

资金

  1. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. National Institutes of Mental Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: HIV/AIDS has historically had a sex and gender-focused approach to prevention and care. Some evidence suggests that HIV-positive men have worse treatment outcomes than their women counterparts in Africa. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of sex on the risk of death among participants enrolled in antiretroviral therapy (ART) programs in Africa since the rapid scale-up of ART. We included all cohort studies evaluating the effect of sex (male, female) on the risk of death among participants enrolled in regional and national ART programs in Africa. We identified these studies by searching MedLine, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We used a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects method to pool the proportions of men receiving ART and the hazard ratios for death by sex. Results: Twenty-three cohort studies, including 216 008 participants (79 892 men) contributed to our analysis. The pooled proportion of men receiving ART was 35% [95% confidence interval (CI): 33-38%]. The pooled hazard ratio estimate indicated a significant increase in the risk of death for men when compared to women [hazard ratio: 1.37 (95% CI: 1.28-1.47)]. This was consistent across sensitivity analyses. Interpretation: The proportion of men enrolled in ART programs in Africa is lower than women. Additionally, there is an increased risk of death for men enrolled in ART programs. Solutions that aid in reducing these sex inequities are needed. (C) 2013 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins AIDS 2013, 27:417-425

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