Clinical characteristics and outcomes of people living with HIV and ocular syphilis during the COVID-19 health emergency
Résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: The global shift in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic led to challenges in the care of people living with HIV. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study that aimed to delineate sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and outcomes, of people living with HIV diagnosed with ocular syphilis. RESULTS: Fifty-three people living with HIV were identified with ocular syphilis. Thirty-eight (71.6%) presented ocular symptoms. Twenty-three (43.3%) underwent lumbar puncture, 5 (9.4%) were positive for neurosyphilis. Forty-seven (88.6%) received treatment, 32 (68%) received standard treatment with aqueous crystalline penicillin G, and 15 (31.9%) were treated with alternative regimens due to the impossibility of hospitalization. Six (11.3%) individuals were lost to follow-up and/or did not receive treatment. Eighteen (56.2%) out of 32 individuals in the aqueous crystalline penicillin G group experienced serological response, 5 (15.6%) experienced treatment failure, and 9 (28.1%) were lost to follow-up. In the alternative therapy group, 12 out of 15 individuals (80%) experienced serological response. One (6.7%) experienced treatment failure, and 2 (13.3%) were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 health emergency in Mexico, alternative treatments for ocular syphilis demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes amid challenges in accessing hospitalization.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Clinical characteristics and outcomes of people living with HIV and ocular syphilis during the COVID-19 health emergency
- Date Crossref
- 03/06/2024
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.