4.5 Article

Long-term mortality in HIV patients virally suppressed for more than three years with incomplete CD4 recovery: A cohort study

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-318

关键词

-

资金

  1. Roche
  2. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  3. Merck Sharp Dohme
  4. GlaxoSmithKline
  5. Abbott
  6. Boehringer Ingelheim
  7. Janssen-Cilag
  8. Swedish Orphan
  9. Pharmasia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The mortality in patients with persistent low CD4 count despite several years of HAART with sustained viral suppression is poorly documented. We aimed to identify predictors for inadequate CD4 cell recovery and estimate mortality in patients with low CD4 count but otherwise successful HAART. Method: In a nationwide cohort of HIV patients we identified all individuals who started HAART before 1 January 2005 with CD4 cell count <= 200 cells/mu L and experienced three years with sustained viral suppression. Patients were categorized according to CD4 cell count after the three years suppressed period (<= 200 cells/mu L; immunological non-responders (INRs), >200 cells/mu L; immunological responders (IRs)). We used logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis to estimated risk factors and mortality for INRs compared to IRs. Results: We identified 55 INRs and 236 IRs. In adjusted analysis age > 40 years and > one year from first CD4 cell count <= 200 cells/mu L to start of the virologically suppressed period were associated with increased risk of INR. INRs had substantially higher mortality compared to IRs. The excess mortality was mainly seen in the INR group with > one year of immunological suppression prior to viral suppression and injection drug users (IDUs). Conclusion: Age and prolonged periods of immune deficiency prior to successful HAART are risk factors for incomplete CD4 cell recovery. INRs have substantially increased long-term mortality mainly associated with prolonged immunological suppression prior to viral suppression and IDU.

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

4.5
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