Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate demographic characteristics of patients with HIV infection applying to the Clinic of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology of İstanbul Şişli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research retrospectively and to compare antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens with regard to virological and immunological response in these patients.

Methods: 196 HIV/AIDS patients who applied to the clinic between 2013 and 2015 were included in the study. Patients were evaluated by age, gender, HIV RNA values (at the beginning, 4th, 24th and 48th weeks), and CD4+ T lymphocyte counts (at the beginning, 24th and 48th weeks). Comparisons between patients divided into three treatment groups as integrase inhibitor (INI), protease inhibitor (PI), and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) regimens were made with regard to virological and immunological responses obtained.

Results: Of patients, 93.4% were male and mean age was 35.89±10.83 years. Distribution of INI, NNRTI and PI-based ART groups were 49.2%, 8.2%, and 42.3%, respectively. No difference was found between ART regimens at the 4th week with regard to virological response. Response to INI-based regimen was more successful at the 12th and 24th weeks. There was no difference between ART regimens at the 48th week with regard to virological response. Although there was no difference between treatment regimens at the 24th week in terms of immunological response, INI- and PI-based regimens were more successful at the 48th week.

Conclusions: We found that virological and immunological responses to INI- and PI-based regimens are better than NNRTI regimen. According to our results, first INI regimen, and then PI regimen should be preferred at naive patients, as defined in the guidelines. Klimik Dergisi 2019; 32(1): 13-8.

Cite this article as: Akkaya-Işık S, Gündüz A, Öncül A, et al. [Comparison of antiretroviral therapy regimens with regard to virological and immunological response in treatment-naive HIV/AIDS patients]. Klimik Derg. 2019; 32(1): 13-8. Turkish.