OBJECTIVE: To evaluate immune-hematological profiles among HIV infected patients compared to HIV/malaria co-infected for ART management improvement.
METHODS: This was a cross sectional study conducted at Infectious Disease Hospital, Kano. A total of 761 consenting adults attending ART clinic were randomly selected and recruited between June and December 2015. Participants' characteristics and clinical details including two previous CD4 counts were collected. Venous blood sample (4ml) was collected in EDTA tube for malaria parasite diagnosis by rapid test and confirmed with microscopy. Hematological profiles were analyzed by Sysmex XP-300 and CD4 count by Cyflow cytometry. Data was analyzed with SPSS 22.0 using Chi-Square test for association between HIV/malaria parasites co-infection with age groups, gender, ART, cotrimoxazole and usage of treated bed nets. Mean hematological profiles by HIV/malaria co-infection and HIV only were compared using independent t-test and mean CD4 count tested by mixed design repeated measures ANOVA. Statistical significant difference at probability of <0.05 was considered for all variables.
RESULTS: Of the 761 HIV infected, 64% were females, with a mean age of ± (SD) 37.30 (10.4) years. Prevalence of HIV/malaria co-infection was 27.7% with Plasmodium falciparum specie accounting for 99.1%. No statistical significant difference was observed between HIV/malaria co-infection in association to age (p = 0.498) and gender (p = 0.789). A significantly (p = 0.026) higher prevalence (35.2%) of co-infection was observed among non-ART patients compared to (26%) ART patients. Prevalence of co-infection was significantly lower (20.0%) among cotrimoxazole users compared to those not on cotrimoxazole (37%). The same significantly lower co-infection prevalence (22.5%) was observed among treated bed net users compared to those not using treated bed nets (42.9%) (p = 0.001). Out of 16 hematology profiles evaluated, six showed significant difference between the two groups (i) packed cell volume (p = <0.001), (ii) mean cell volume (p = 0.005), (iii) mean cell hemoglobin concentration (p = 0.011), (iv) absolute lymphocyte count (p = 0.022), (v) neutrophil percentage count (p = 0.020) and (vi) platelets distribution width (p = <0.001). Current mean CD4 count cell/μl (349±12) was significantly higher in HIV infected only compared to co-infected (306±17), (p = 0.035). A significantly lower mean CD4 count (234.6 ± 6.9) was observed among respondents on ART compared to non-ART (372.5 ± 13.2), p<0.001, mean difference = -137.9).
CONCLUSION: The study revealed a high burden of HIV and malaria co-infection among the studied population. Co-infection was significantly lower among patients who use treated bed nets as well as cotrimoxazole chemotherapy and ART. Six hematological indices differed significantly between the two groups. Malaria and HIV co-infection significantly reduces CD4 count. In general, to achieve better management of all HIV patients in this setting, diagnosing malaria, prompt antiretroviral therapy, monitoring CD4 and some hematology indices on regular basis is critical.
METHODS: Randomized trials, assessing the efficacy of antiviral drugs for HBV and HIV co-infected patients were searched in health-related databases. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Main outcome in this meta-analysis study was the success of treatment by antivirals as determined by virologic response. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis of these trials and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Seven randomized trials (329 participants) were included in this network meta-analysis study. A network geometry was formed with six treatment options including four antiviral drugs, adefovir (ADV), emtricitabine (FTC), lamivudine (LMV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), combination treatment of TDF plus LMV, and placebo. The weighted percentage contributions of each comparison distributed fairly equally in the entire network of evidence. An assumption of consistency required for network meta-analysis was not violated (the global Wald test for inconsistency: Chi2(4) = 3.63, p = 0.46). The results of estimates showed no differences between the treatment regimens in terms of viral response for treating HBV and HIV co-infected patients, which spanned both benefit and harm (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.06-2.41). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low in all comparisons (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: 218 fewer per 1000,121 more to 602 fewer, very low certainty). Therefore, we remained uncertain to the true ranking of the antiviral treatments in HBV/ HIV co-infected patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the evidence is insufficient to provide guidance to the relative effectiveness of currently available antiviral drugs with dual activity in treating co-infection of HBV/HIV. Well-designed, large clinical trials in this field to address other important outcomes from different epidemiological settings are recommended.