4.6 Article

Clinical predictors for death in HIV-positive and HIV-negative tuberculosis patients in Guinea-Bissau

期刊

INFECTION
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 69-80

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s15010-007-6090-3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess easily monitored predictors for tuberculosis mortality. Risk factors for tuberculosis mortality were assessed during the 8-month treatment in 440 men and 269 women diagnosed with confirmed or presumed intrathoracic tuberculosis included prospectively in Guinea-Bissau from May 1996 to April 2001. A civil war occurred in the study area from June 1998 to May 1999. 12% were HIV-1 positive, 16% HIV-2 positive and 7% were HIV dually infected. Case fatality rates for HIV positive were higher during (35% [22/63]) and after the war (29% [27/92]) compared to before the war (17% [15/88]). The war did not have an effect on the case fatality rate in HIV negative (10% [13/135] before the war). HIV-1-infected patients had higher mortality than HIV-2 infected, mortality rate ratio (MRR) = 2.28 (95% confidence interval 1.17-4.46). Men had higher mortality than women but only among the HIV negative (MRR = 2.09 [0.95-4.59]). Hence, the negative impact of HIV infection on mortality was stronger in women (MRR = 6.51 [2.98-14.2]) than in men (MRR = 2.64 [1.67-4.17]) (test of homogeneity, p = 0.051). Anergy to tuberculin was associated with death in HIV positive (MRR = 2.77 [1.38-5.54]) but not in HIV negative (MRR = 1.14 [0.52-2.53]). Signs of immune deficiency, such as oral candida infection or leukoplakia (MRR = 4.25 [1.92-9.44]) and diarrhea (MRR = 2.15 [1.29-3.58] was associated with mortality in HIV positive. Tendencies were similar among HIV negative. HIV-positive relapse cases were at increased risk of dying (MRR = 2.42 [1.10-5.34]). Malnutrition, measured through mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), increased the risk of death. Easily monitored predictors for mortality in tuberculosis patients include clinical signs of immune deficiency and low MUAC.

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

4.6
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