4.4 Article

Reversibility of lipoatrophy in HIV-infected patients 2 years after switching from a thymidine analogue to abacavir: the MITOX Extension Study

期刊

AIDS
卷 18, 期 7, 页码 1029-1036

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00002030-200404300-00011

关键词

HIV lipodystrophy; lipoatrophy; thymidine analogues; abacavir

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine if long-term improvement in HIV lipoatrophy can be attained by substitution of thymidine analogues zidovudine (ZDV) or stavudine (d4T) with abacavir (ABC). Design: Long-term follow-up (104 weeks) of a randomized, open-label study. Setting: Seventeen ambulatory HIV clinics in Australia and London. Subjects: Patients with HIV lipodystrophy were randomized to switch from a thymidine analogue to ABC, while continuing all other antiretroviral therapy (ABC arm) (n = 42) or continue current therapy (ZDV/d4T arm) (n = 43). Intervention: At week 24, all control patients could switch to ABC. Of the original 111 patients randomized, 85 had long-term follow-up data, with 77 having imaging data available at 104 weeks. Main outcome measure: The primary endpoint was time-weighted change in limb fat mass, measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Results: At week 104, the mean increase in limb fat for the ABC and ZDV/d4T group was 1.26 +/- 2.02 kg and 0.49 +/- 1.38 kg, respectively. The time-weighted change for limb fat was significantly different between the two arms (0.43 kg; P = 0.008). On-treatment analysis demonstrated a trend for increased limb fat in patients in the ABC arm. Visceral fat accumulation, buffalo hump, self-assessed lipodystrophy or the lipodystrophy case definition score (LCDS) did not improve. Conclusions: In patients with moderate-to-severe lipodystrophy, significant improvements in subcutaneous fat continued over 104 weeks after switching from a thymidine analogue to ABC. Nevertheless, the lipodystrophy syndrome was still evident, indicating additional strategies need evaluating. (C) 2004 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