4.0 Article

Impact of Prior HAART Use on Clinical Outcomes in a Large Kenyan HIV Treatment Program

期刊

CURRENT HIV RESEARCH
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 441-446

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/157016209788680552

关键词

Africa; HAART; HIV-1; clinic flow; experience; mortality

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [K23 AI065222, P30 AI027757, 5K23AI065222-04, K23 AI065222-04] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [K24 HD054314-03, K24 HD054314] Funding Source: Medline
  3. PHS HHS [U62/CCU024512-04] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: HIV treatment programs in Africa typically approach all enrolling patients uniformly. Growing numbers of patients are antiretroviral experienced. Defining patients on the basis of antiretroviral experience may inform enrollment practices, particularly if medical outcomes differ. Methods: Baseline and follow-up measures (CD4, weight change, and survival) were compared in a retrospective analysis between antiretroviral-naive (ARV-N) and antiretroviral experience (ARV-E) patients enrolled at the Coptic Hope Center for Infectious Diseases in Nairobi, Kenya and followed between January 2004 and August 2006. Results: 1,307 ARV-N and 962 ARV-E patients receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) were followed for median of 9 months (interquartile range: 4-16 months). Compared to ARV-N, ARV-E had substantially higher CD4 count (median cells/mm(3), 193 versus 95, P < 0.001) and weight (median kg, 62 versus 57, P < 0.001) at baseline, and lower rates of change in CD4 (-9.2 cells/mm(3)/month; 95% CI, -11.4--7.0) and weight (-0.24 kg/month; 95% CI, -0.35--0.14) over 12 months. Mortality was significantly higher in ARV-N than ARV-E (P = 0.001). Conclusions: ARV-E patients form a growing group that differs significantly from ARV-N patients and requires a distinct approach from ARV-N clients. Systematic approaches to streamline care of ARV-E patients may allow focused attention on early ARV-N clients whose mortality risks are substantially higher.

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

4.0
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