4.4 Article

Early initiation of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults and adolescents: a systematic review

期刊

AIDS
卷 28, 期 -, 页码 S105-S118

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000000232

关键词

adolescents; adults; antiretroviral therapy; observational studies; randomized controlled trial; systematic review; WHO

资金

  1. WHO [APW 200671213]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives:The objective of this review was to update evidence on when to initiate antiretroviral therapy (ART) to inform revision of the 2013 WHO guidelines for ART in low and middle-income countries.Design:A systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods:We comprehensively searchescohorts. Outcomes were mortality, clinical progression, virologic failure, immunologic recover, and severe adverse events. We pooled data across studies and estimated summary effect sizes. We graded the quality of evidence from the literature for each outcome.Results:We identified 24 studies; 3 were RCTs. Studies found reduced risk of mortality [1 RCT: hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.76; 13 cohorts: relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.55-0.79], progression to AIDS or death (2 RCTs: RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.91; 9 cohorts: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40-1.24) and diagnosis of a non-AIDS-defining illness (1 RCT: RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.64; 1 cohort: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.98), and an increased risk of grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities in patients initiating ART at at least 350cells/l (1 RCT: RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.25-1.77). The quality of evidence was low or very low for clinical outcomes due to few events and imprecision, and high for adverse events.Conclusions:Our findings contributed to the evidence base for the revised 2013 WHO guidelines on ART, which recommend initiating ART at CD4(+) T-cell counts of 350-500cells/l, but not above 500cells/l compared to initiating it later when CD4(+) T-cell counts fall below 350cells/mu l. (C) 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

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

4.4
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