Antonia L Moore1, Caroline A Sabin, Margaret A Johnson, Andrew N Phillips. 1. Royal Free Centre for HIV Medicine and Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Royal Free and University College Medical School, Hampstead, London, UK. antonia.moore@pcps.ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine gender differences in clinical response to highly active antiretroviral treatment (HAART). METHODS: A cohort of HIV-positive individuals was examined. Outcomes assessed were hospital admission and disease progression (either a new AIDS diagnosis or death) after starting HAART. Hazard ratios (HRs) derived using Cox regression methods compared female-to-male rates, adjusting for other factors independently associated with outcome. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-seven men and 146 women were followed up over a median of 13 months after starting HAART. Eighty-one percent of men were white, and 75% were homosexual. Fifty-eight percent of women were black African, and 86% were in the heterosexual risk category. The baseline CD4 count was higher in men than in women (191 vs. 145 x 10; p < .01), but viral loads were similar (5.2 vs. 5.1 log copies/ml, respectively; p = .13). Fifty-six percent of men and women were treatment naïve. Eighteen percent of men and women were admitted during follow-up, with 17% of male admissions and 12% of female admissions being the result of an AIDS-defining illness. The HR for admission was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-1.27; p = .30) for women relative to men. Eleven percent of the men and 8% of the women experienced progression. Eighty-eight percent of progressions were the result of a new AIDS diagnosis (46 in men, 11 in women), and 8 men died. The HR for progression was 0.70 (CI: 0.36-1.33; p = .28). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a possible benefit in women compared with men in the rate of outcomes after HAART. Further analysis with longer follow-up or greater numbers would enable a more powerful analysis to be performed.
OBJECTIVE: To examine gender differences in clinical response to highly active antiretroviral treatment (HAART). METHODS: A cohort of HIV-positive individuals was examined. Outcomes assessed were hospital admission and disease progression (either a new AIDS diagnosis or death) after starting HAART. Hazard ratios (HRs) derived using Cox regression methods compared female-to-male rates, adjusting for other factors independently associated with outcome. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-seven men and 146 women were followed up over a median of 13 months after starting HAART. Eighty-one percent of men were white, and 75% were homosexual. Fifty-eight percent of women were black African, and 86% were in the heterosexual risk category. The baseline CD4 count was higher in men than in women (191 vs. 145 x 10; p < .01), but viral loads were similar (5.2 vs. 5.1 log copies/ml, respectively; p = .13). Fifty-six percent of men and women were treatment naïve. Eighteen percent of men and women were admitted during follow-up, with 17% of male admissions and 12% of female admissions being the result of an AIDS-defining illness. The HR for admission was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-1.27; p = .30) for women relative to men. Eleven percent of the men and 8% of the women experienced progression. Eighty-eight percent of progressions were the result of a new AIDS diagnosis (46 in men, 11 in women), and 8 men died. The HR for progression was 0.70 (CI: 0.36-1.33; p = .28). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a possible benefit in women compared with men in the rate of outcomes after HAART. Further analysis with longer follow-up or greater numbers would enable a more powerful analysis to be performed.
Authors: Vincent Ochieng-Ooko; Daniel Ochieng; John E Sidle; Margaret Holdsworth; Kara Wools-Kaloustian; Abraham M Siika; Constantin T Yiannoutsos; Michael Owiti; Sylvester Kimaiyo; Paula Braitstein Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Manuela García de la Hera; Inmaculada Ferreros; Julia del Amo; Patricia García de Olalla; Santiago Pérez Hoyos; Roberto Muga; Jorge del Romero; Rafael Guerrero; Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Baba M Musa; Musa A Garbati; Ibrahim M Nashabaru; Shehu M Yusuf; Aisha M Nalado; Daiyabu A Ibrahim; Melynda N Simmons; Muktar H Aliyu Journal: Int Health Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 2.473
Authors: Mhairi Maskew; Alana T Brennan; Daniel Westreich; Lynne McNamara; A Patrick MacPhail; Matthew P Fox Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Mardge H Cohen; Judith A Cook; Dennis Grey; Mary Young; Lawrence H Hanau; Phyllis Tien; Alexandra M Levine; Tracey E Wilson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Mirjam-Colette Kempf; Maria Pisu; Anastasiya Dumcheva; Andrew O Westfall; J Michael Kilby; Michael S Saag Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2009-11-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Oni J Blackstock; Janet P Tate; Kathleen M Akgün; Stephen Crystal; Mona Duggal; E Jennifer Edelman; Cynthia L Gibert; Kirsha S Gordon; David Rimland; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas; Emily A Wang; David A Fiellin; Amy C Justice Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.128