| Literature DB >> 31737737 |
Sahera Dirajlal-Fargo1,2,3, Carlee Moser4, Katherine Rodriguez4, Vanessa El-Kamari1,3, Nicholas T Funderburg5, Emily Bowman5, Todd T Brown6, Peter W Hunt7, Judith Currier8, Grace A McComsey1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bacterial translocation in HIV is associated with inflammation and metabolic complications; few data exist on the role of fungal translocation.Entities:
Keywords: HIV; fat; fungal translocation; gut integrity; inflammation
Year: 2019 PMID: 31737737 PMCID: PMC6847395 DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofz434
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis ISSN: 2328-8957 Impact factor: 3.835
Figure 1.Mean fold-change and 95% confidence intervals are shown by treatment arm at each time point. Abbreviations: ATV/r, atazanavir-boosted ritonavir; BDG, β-d-glucan; DRV/r, darunavir-boosted ritonavir; RAL, raltegravir.
Relative Fold-Change in BDG From Baseline Between Treatment Arms
| Treatment Comparison | Change From Baseline at | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 4 | Week 24 | Week 96 | ||
| ATV/r vs DRV/r | Mean (97.5% CI) | 1.39 (0.79 to 2.42) | 1.03 (0.74 to 1.44) | 1.09 (0.79 to 1.50) |
|
| .38 | .71 | .27 | |
| ATV/r vs RAL | Mean (97.5% CI) | 1.17 (0.68 to 1.99) | 1.03 (0.71 to 1.49) | 1.09 (0.77 to 1.56) |
|
| .65 | .50 | .24 | |
| RAL vs DRV/r | Mean (97.5% CI) | 0.84 (0.48 to 1.48) | 0.99 (0.70 to 1.40) | 1.01 (0.72 to 1.41) |
|
| .68 | .69 | .84 | |
Pairwise treatment group comparisons of relative fold-change in BDG from baseline and respective study visit.
Abbreviations: ATV/r, atazanavir-ritonavir; BDG, β-D-glucan; CI, confidence interval; DRV/r, darunavir-ritonavir; RAL, raltegravir.
Regression Estimates for Week 96 Percent Change in Adiposity Measures
| Percent Change at Week 96 | BDG Level at | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 0 | Week 4 | Week 24 | Week 96 | ||
| Total fat | Estimate (95% CI) | 1.54 (–2.24 to 5.32) | –1.80 (–3.86 to 0.27) | 7.11 (–0.43 to 14.65) | 6.89 (0.49 to 13.29) |
|
| .42 | .088 | .065 |
| |
| Trunk fat | Estimate (95% CI) | 1.76 (–2.61 to 6.13) | –2.03 (–4.43 to 0.36) | 9.27 (0.57 to 17.98) | 8.05 (0.67 to 15.44) |
|
| .43 | .096 |
|
| |
| VAT | Estimate (95% CI) | 2.88 (–4.22 to 9.98) | –0.17 (–4.13 to 3.78) | –3.63 (–17.67 to 10.41) | 3.30 (–8.84 to 15.43) |
|
| .43 | .93 | .61 | .59 | |
| SAT | Estimate (95% CI) | 1.28 (–4.14 to 6.70) | –0.36 (–3.32 to 2.59) | 8.82 (–1.48 to 19.13) | 4.65 (–4.58 to 13.87) |
|
| .64 | .81 | .093 | .32 | |
| TAT | Estimate (95% CI) | 2.12 (–3.05 to 7.29) | –0.26 (–3.13 to 2.62) | 6.49 (–3.77 to 16.76) | 4.28 (–4.55 to 13.11) |
|
| .42 | .86 | .22 | .34 | |
| BMI | Estimate (95% CI) | 0.46 (–0.62 to 1.53) | 0.03 (–0.57 to 0.63) | 1.27 (–0.88 to 3.42) | 0.69 (–1.15 to 2.53) |
|
| .40 | .92 | 25 | .47 | |
Regression estimates are for unadjusted models only. Estimates are presented as per 0.3-log10 units increase, which is equivalent to a 2-fold difference.
Abbreviations: BDG, β-D-glucan; BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; SAT, subcutaneous abdominal tissue; TAT, total adipose tissue; VAT, visceral adipose tissue.