4.1 Article

CD4 percentage is an independent predictor of survival in patients starting antiretroviral therapy with absolute CD4 cell counts between 200 and 350 cells/μL

期刊

HIV MEDICINE
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 383-388

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-1293.2006.00397.x

关键词

antiretroviral therapy; CD4; CD4 percentage; HIV infection; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine the prognostic value of baseline CD4 percentage in terms of patient survival in comparison to absolute CD4 cell counts for HIV-positive patients initiating highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Methods A population-based cohort study of 1623 antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-positive individuals who initiated HAART between 1 August 1996 and 30 June 2002 was conducted. Cumulative mortality rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model the effect of baseline CD4 strata and CD4 percentage strata and other prognostic variables on survival. A subgroup analysis was conducted on 417 AIDS-free subjects with baseline CD4 counts between 200 and 350 cells/mu L. Results In multivariate models, low CD4 percentages were associated with increased risk of death [CD4%< 5, relative hazard (RH)=4.46; CD4% 5-14, RH=2.43; P < 0.01 for both] when compared with those subjects with an initial CD4 fraction of 15% or greater, but had less predictive value than absolute CD4 counts. In subgroup analyses where absolute CD4 strata were not associated with mortality, a baseline CD4 fraction below 15% [RH=2.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-6.10], poor adherence to therapy and baseline viral load > 100 000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL were associated with an increased risk of death. Conclusion CD4 percentages below 15% are independent predictors of mortality in AIDS-free patients starting HAART, including those with CD4 counts between 200 and 350 cells/mu L. CD4 percentage should be considered for inclusion in guidelines used to determine when to start therapy.

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