4.4 Article

Bone mineral density is not reduced in HIV-infected Caucasian men treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy

期刊

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 191-197

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2265.2006.02572.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Recent studies have reported low bone mineral density (BMD) in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Frequently these findings have been attributed to treatment with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). We sought to determine whether BMD in HIV-infected men treated with HAART for at least 3 months is different from that in healthy controls, and, if so, what HIV-related factors might explain this finding. Design Cross-sectional analysis. Patients Fifty-nine HIV-infected Caucasian men treated with HAART, and 118 healthy community-dwelling controls. Each HIV-infected man was age-matched (within 5 years) to two controls. Measurements All participants had measurements of BMD and bone-related laboratory parameters. Results The mean duration of known HIV infection was 8.5 years, and of treatment with HAART was 52 months. There was no significant difference in mean BMD between groups at the lumbar spine (HIV group: 1.23 g/cm(2), controls: 1.25 g/cm(2); P = 0.53) or total body (HIV group: 1.18 g/cm(2), controls: 1.20 g/cm(2); P = 0.09). At the total hip the HIV-infected group had significantly lower BMD than the control group (HIV group: 1.03 g/cm(2), controls: 1.09 g/cm(2); P = 0.01). The HIV-infected group were, on average, 6.3 kg lighter than the controls. After adjusting for this weight difference, HIV infection was not an independent predictor of BMD at any site (lumbar spine P = 0.79; total hip P = 0.18; total body P = 0.76). Conclusions HIV-infected men treated with HAART are lighter than healthy controls. This weight difference is responsible for a small decrement in hip BMD. Overall, BMD is not significantly reduced in HIV-infected Caucasian men treated with HAART.

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