Survival in HIV-positive transplant recipients compared with transplant candidates and with HIV-negative controls.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of liver and kidney transplantation on survival in HIV-positive transplant candidates and compare outcomes between HIV-positive and negative recipients. DESIGN: Observational cohort of HIV-positive transplant candidates and recipients and secondary analysis comparing study recipients to HIV-negative national registry controls. METHODS: We fit proportional hazards models to assess transplantation impact on mortality among recipients and candidates. We compared time to graft failure and death with HIV-negative controls in unmatched, demographic-matched, and risk-adjusted models. RESULTS: There were 17 (11.3%) and 46 (36.8%) deaths among kidney and liver recipients during a median follow-up of 4.0 and 3.5 years, respectively. Transplantation was associated with survival benefit for HIV-infected liver recipients with model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) greater than or equal 15 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05, 0.01; P < 0.0001], but not for MELD less than 15 (HR 0.7; 95% CI 0.3, 1.8; P = 0.43) or for kidney recipients (HR 0.6; 95% CI 0.3, 1.4; P = 0.23). In HIV-positive kidney recipients, unmatched and risk-matched analyses indicated a marginally significant HR for graft loss [1.3 (P = 0.07) and HR 1.4 (P = 0.052)]; no significant increase in risk of death was observed. All models demonstrated a higher relative hazard of graft loss or death in HIV-positive liver recipients; the absolute difference in the proportion of deaths was 6.7% in the risk-matched analysis. CONCLUSION: Kidney transplantation should be standard of care for well managed HIV-positive patients. Liver transplant in candidates with high MELD confers survival benefit; transplant is a viable option in selected candidates. The increased mortality risk compared with HIV-negative recipients was modest. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov; NCT00074386; http://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Seroprevalence of HTLV-I and HTLV-II among a cohort of HIV-infected women and women at risk for HIV infection. Women's Interagency HIV Study

OBJECTIVES: To determine the seroprevalence of, and risk factors for, HTLV-I and HTLV-II infection among HIV-infected women and women at high risk for HIV infection. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data for women enrolled in the prospective Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS). METHODS: From October 1994 through November 1995, 2657 women from five metropolitan areas in the United States (Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City [two sites], Northern California, and Washington DC) were enrolled in WIHS. An interview-based survey collected data on demographics, behavior, and medical history. HTLV-I and HTLV-II determinations were made using a combined HTLV-I/HTLV-II indirect immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) screening test, an IFA titration specificity test, and individual HTLV-I and HTLV-II confirmatory Western blots. Fisher's exact tests and logistic regression were used to determine univariate and multi variate independent predictors for HTLV-II infection. RESULTS: Of 2625 women enrolled in WIHS with confirmed HIV results, 2487 (95 percent) were tested for HTLV-I and HTLV-II. Of these, 241 (10 percent) HTLV-II-seropositive and 13 (0.5 percent) were HTLV-I-seropositive. On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of HTLV-II infection included injection drug use (OR = 5.2; p < .001), black race (OR = 3.6; p < 0.001), age > 35 years (OR = 3.3; p < .001) and a history of sex with a male injecting drug user (OR = 1.9; p < .001). Among women injected with HIV, the seroprevalence of HTLV-II was 11 percent compared infected with HIV, the seroprevalence of HTLV-II was 11 percent compared with 6 percent for women at risk for HIV but not infected (p < .001). However, HIV was not an independent predictor of HTLV-II infection in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This cross sectional analysis confirms that HTLV-II is found commonly in HIV-infected women at risk for HIV in major urban areas throughout the United States and that HTLV-II is far more common than HTLV-I in these populations. Although injecting drug use is most strongly associated with HTLV-II infection, sexual transmission likely contributes to the high HTLV-II seroprevalence in this cohort.(AU)