Explanatory variables were considered at the time of assessment of the renal function: gender, age, HIV transmission group, BMI, HIV infection stage, delay since HIV infection diagnosis, HCV co-infection, history or presence of diabetes (defined by the use of antidiabetic drugs, or fasting glycaemia >11 mmol/L),
high blood pressure (defined MK2206 by the use of antihypertensive agents, or systolic blood pressure >140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure >90 mmHg), hyperlipidemia (prescription of lipid lowering drugs, or fasting total plasma cholesterol >6.5 mmol/L or fasting triglyceridemia >2.2 mmol/L), most recent HIV1-RNA plasma viral load (VL), CD4 cell count, and cumulative duration of use of each class of ART since inclusion in the cohort including nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (tenofovir), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI), IDV and protease inhibitors (PI) other than indinavir. In additional models, current use of tenofovir and IDV were added to other variables. Prevalence of RI was computed as the number selleckchem of cases of RI per 100 patients followed in the study period. We calculated the crude overall RI prevalence and specific rate for each stage of RI. Patients’ characteristics were selected for
inclusion in the multivariate model of determinants of RI if they were significantly associated in the univariate analysis (P<0.25). We compared patients according to the two following thresholds: 90 mL/min (any RI) and 60 mL/min (advanced RI). In order to correct for the weaknesses as a result of response variable dichotomization , we performed a polynomial logistic regression which allowed us to compare two Ureohydrolase by two, the categories of patients with normal renal function, those with mild RI and those with advanced RI. Models were fitted using the SAS software (version 9.1.3; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Interaction terms combining primary exposure and confounding measures were evaluated.
A backward elimination procedure was used to determine the most parsimonious model. All statistical tests were two-sided and a P-value of 0.05 was considered as significant. Between January 2004 and August 2006, 3151 patients were seen at least once in the Aquitaine Cohort. Five hundred and six patients were excluded from the study because of missing data. Furthermore, 57 additional subjects were excluded in order to ensure the validity of the use of the CG formula (two ascites, two pregnant women, 52 patients with either a BMI <18 or >30 kg/m2). Thus, data of 2588 patients were available for analysis (82% of the entire cohort). There was no statistical difference between the main characteristics of the excluded population and those of the study population except for NNRTI and IDV exposures which were more frequent among excluded patients (60.9%vs. 50.2% and 32.4%vs. 25.5% respectively).