4.3 Article

HIV-related neuropathology, 1985 to 1999: Rising prevalence of HIV encephalopathy in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00126334-200210010-00007

关键词

HIV encephalopathy; neuropathology; autopsy; HIV; AIDS

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH59037] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS37660] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Postmortem neuropathologic reports for a consecutive series of 436 HIV-seropositive patients who died between 1985 and 1999 were matched with clinical data for 371 of them. Cases were divided into four groups depending on the date of death. The chosen time periods reflected the type of antiretroviral therapy available: before 1987 (before zidovudine); 1987-1992, the period of monotherapy (nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs]); 1993-1995, the era of the use of dual NRTI combinations; and 1996-1999, the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) containing protease inhibitors. Fifty-seven percent of our cases in this group had been prescribed HAART. In our study population, accessibility to the latest antiretroviral therapy was widespread. The total number of HIV autopsies declined after the advent of combination therapy. The prevalence of opportunistic infections-cytomegalovirus, toxoplasmosis, cryptococcosis, and central nervous system lymphoma-decreased over time. Cerebral tuberculosis, aspergillosis, herpes, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy showed a downward trend, but the numbers were too low for statistical analyses. The incidence of HIV encephalopathy increased over time (p = .014). The rising prevalence of HIV encephalopathy at time of death may reflect a longer survival time after initial HIV infection in the HAART era. Although combination therapies decrease overall mortality and prevalence of CNS opportunistic infections, these therapies may be less active in preventing direct HIV-1 effects on the brain.

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

4.3
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