Current HIV/AIDS Reports

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 171–178

Treating Women with HIV: Is it Different than Treating Men?

Antiretroviral Therapies (A Pozniak, Section Editor)

Abstract

While antiretroviral therapy (ART) has had a tremendous impact on the morbidity and mortality of patients with HIV, there is evidence that many HIV-infected women experience treatment challenges that are different from men and these challenges are often associated with poorer outcomes. In the United States, blacks and Latino women are disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic related to lack of access to high-quality HIV care, and socioeconomic factors. In Africa and Asia, HIV infection in women is affected by gender norms that often leave women dependent upon men (either emotionally or financially) and vulnerable in relationships. These gender norms and, in some cases, fears of violence make it difficult for women to refuse unprotected sex, and can contribute to higher infection rates in women and delayed entry to care. Many African migrants in Europe and Australia may feel stigmatized and fear discrimination when accessing care. As a consequence, despite the availability of highly active antiretroviral therapy, women with HIV often have delayed entry into care and experience poor outcomes. With the notable exception of treatment during pregnancy, there is little in the published literature to suggest that the treatment of choice for treatment-naïve patients should be determined by the patient’s sex. While virologic efficacy of ART may be similar in large clinical trials, differences in the frequency of treatment-related side effects and the impact of pregnancy and/or child-bearing status on treatment choice is well documented. In this paper we aim to discuss antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected women, the sex-specific barriers to starting care, the differences in outcomes, and complications.

Keywords

Women HIV Disparities Outcomes Antiretroviral therapies 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    •• Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. In: Department of Health and Human Services; January 10, 2011; 1–166. Available at <http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf >. Accessed March 17, 2012. Current US IV treatment guidelines. Excellent drug interaction tables.
  2. 2.
    Prevention CfDCa. MMWR: vital signs: HIV prevention through care and treatment—United States. In: 2011:1618–23.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mugavero MJ, Lin HY, Allison JJ, et al. Failure to establish HIV care: characterizing the “no show” phenomenon. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:127–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen MH, Cook JA, Grey D, et al. Medically eligible women who do not use HAART: the importance of abuse, drug use, and race. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:1147–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stein MD, Crystal S, Cunningham WE, et al. Delays in seeking HIV care due to competing caregiver responsibilities. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:1138–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Merenstein D, Schneider MF, Cox C, et al. Association of child care burden and household composition with adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy in the Women’s Interagency HIV Study. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2009;23:289–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cunningham WE, Andersen RM, Katz MH, et al. The impact of competing subsistence needs and barriers on access to medical care for persons with human immunodeficiency virus receiving care in the United States. Med Care. 1999;37:1270–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    •• Lillie-Blanton M, Stone VE, Snow Jones A, et al. Association of race, substance abuse, and health insurance coverage with use of highly active antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected women. Am J Public Health. 2005;100:1493–9. A large cohort of women that showed that minority, uninsured and/or alcohol using women were more likely to not be receiving HAART. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lazarus L, Deering KN, Nabess R, Gibson K, Tyndall MW, Shannon K. Occupational stigma as a primary barrier to health care for street-based sex workers in Canada. Cult Health Sex. 2012;14(2):139–50.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cook JA, Cohen MH, Burke J, et al. Effects of depressive symptoms and mental health quality of life on use of highly active antiretroviral therapy among HIV-seropositive women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;30:401–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook JA, Cohen MH, Grey D, et al. Use of highly active antiretroviral therapy in a cohort of HIV-seropositive women. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:82–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ofotokun I, Pomeroy C. Sex differences in adverse reactions to antiretroviral drugs. Top HIV Med. 2003;11:55–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mocroft A, Gill MJ, Davidson W, Phillips AN. Are there gender differences in starting protease inhibitors, HAART, and disease progression despite equal access to care? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2000;24:475–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ohmit SE, Schuman P, Schoenbaum E, et al. Adherence to antiretroviral therapy among women in the HIV Epidemiology Research Study and Women’s Interagency HIV Study [abstract 105]. 12th World AIDS Conference. Geneva, Switzerland., 28 June to 3 July 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kang SY, Deren S, Colon HM. Differential gender effects of depression on use of HIV medications among HIV-positive Puerto Rican drug users. AIDS Care. 2011;23:1467–71.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ickovics JR, Hamburger ME, Vlahov D, et al. Mortality, CD4 cell count decline, and depressive symptoms among HIV-seropositive women: longitudinal analysis from the HIV Epidemiology Research Study. Jama. 2001;285:1466–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kakuda TN, Schöller-Gyüre M, Hoetelmans RM. Pharmacokinetic interactions between etravirine and non-antiretroviral drugs. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2011;50:25–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ford N, Lee J, Andrieux-Meyer I, Calmy A. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of rilpivirine: systematic review with an emphasis on resource-limited settings. HIV AIDS (Auckl). 2011;3:35–44.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moore AL, Kirk O, Johnson AM, et al. Virologic, immunologic, and clinical response to highly active antiretroviral therapy: the gender issue revisited. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;32:452–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benson CA, Collier AC, Bosch R. Pre-treatment factors that predict responses to potent antiretroviral therapy: findings from the AACTG A5001 Study. 10th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Boston, MA, Feb 10–14, 2003. 2003.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Soon G. Meta-analysis of efficacy outcomes for treatment naïve and experienced HIV-infected women in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) (2000–2008). Abstract 1812. 50th ICAAC. Boston, Sept 12–15, 2010.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prins M, Meyer L, Hessol NA. Sex and the course of HIV infection in the pre- and highly active antiretroviral therapy eras. Aids. 2005;19:357–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Currier J, Averitt Bridge D, Hagins D, et al. Sex-based outcomes of darunavir-ritonavir therapy: a single-group trial. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:349–57.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    •• Lemly DC, Shepherd BE, Hulgan T, et al. Race and sex differences in antiretroviral therapy use and mortality among HIV-infected persons in care. J Infect Dis. 2009;199:991–8. Large study showing that minorities and women in care spend less time on HAART and this is associated with poorer longer outcomes.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gandhi RT, Spritzler J, Chan E, et al. Effect of baseline- and treatment-related factors on immunologic recovery after initiation of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-positive subjects: results from ACTG 384. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;42:426–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robbins GK, De Gruttola V, Shafer RW, et al. Comparison of sequential three-drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2293–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Riddler SA, Haubrich R, DiRienzo AG, et al. Class-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2095–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Riddler SA, Haubrich R, DiRienzo G, et al. Effect of baseline characteristics on treatment outcomes in ACTG 5142: a prospective, randomized, Phase III Trial of NRTI-, PI-, and NNRTI-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 Infection. Abstract 776. 15th CROI. Boston, Feb 3–6, 2008.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    •• Smith KY, Tierney C, Daar E, et al. Association of race/ethnicity and sex with outcomes in ACTG A5202. 18th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2011). Boston. February 27–March 2, 2011. Abstract 536. One of the largest randomized comparisons of current ART regimens in men and women.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith KY, Patel P, Fine D, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-matched, multicenter trial of abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine with lopinavir/ritonavir for initial HIV treatment. Aids. 2009;23:1547–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith KY, Kumar P, Patel P, et al. Differences in virologic response among African-Americans and females regardless of therapy in the HEAT study. Abstract MOPEB033. 5th IAS Conference on HIV Treatment Pathogenesis and Prevention. Capetown, South Africa, July 2009. 2009.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    De Ruiter A, Pozniak A, Staszewski S, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of tenofovir DF (TDF) versus stavudine (d4T) in combination with lamivudine (3TC) and efavirenz (EFV) in antiretroviral-naïve women: 144-week results [Abstract MoOrB1083]. XV International AIDS Conference. Bangkok, Thailand 2004.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lucas GM, Chaisson RE, Moore RD. Highly active antiretroviral therapy in a large urban clinic: risk factors for virologic failure and adverse drug reactions. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:81–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Currier JS, Spino C, Grimes J, et al. Differences between women and men in adverse events and CD4+ responses to nucleoside analogue therapy for HIV infection. The Aids Clinical Trials Group 175 Team. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2000;24:316–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Molina JM, Andrade-Villanueva J, Echevarria J, et al. Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine, for management of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 48 week efficacy and safety results of the CASTLE study. Lancet. 2008;372:646–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mills AM, Nelson M, Jayaweera D, et al. Once-daily darunavir/ritonavir vs. lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients: 96-week analysis. Aids. 2009;23:1679–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Study of Fat Redistribution and Metabolic Change in HIV Infection (FRAM). Fat distribution in women with HIV infection. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;42:562–71.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yin MT, Zhang CA, McMahon DJ, et al. Higher rates of bone loss in postmenopausal HIV-infected women: a longitudinal study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(2):554–62Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pernerstorfer-Schoen H, Jilma B, Perschler A, et al. Sex differences in HAART-associated dyslipidaemia. Aids. 2001;15:725–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brinkman K, ter Hofstede H. Mitochondrial toxicity of nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors: lactic acidosis, risk factors and therapeutic options. AIDS Rev. 1999;1:140–6.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bolhaar MG, Karstaedt AS. A high incidence of lactic acidosis and symptomatic hyperlactatemia in women receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy in Soweto, South Africa. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:254–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Matthews LT, Giddy J, Ghebremichael M, et al. A risk-factor guided approach to reducing lactic acidosis and hyperlactatemia in patients on antiretroviral therapy. PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e18736.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Boxwell DE, Styrt B. Lactic acidosis (LA) in patients receiving nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). [Abstract 1284.]. 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. San Francisco, Calif, September 26–29, 1999.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bersoff-Matcha SJ, Miller WC, Aberg JA, et al. Sex differences in nevirapine rash. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32:124–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mazhude C, Jones S, Murad S, Taylor C, Easterbrook P. Female sex but not ethnicity is a strong predictor of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-induced rash. Aids. 2002;16:1566–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wong KH, Chan KC, Lee SS. Sex differences in nevirapine rash. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:2096–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sanne I, Mommeja-Marin H, Hinkle J, et al. Severe hepatotoxicity associated with nevirapine use in HIV-infected subjects. J Infect Dis. 2005;191:825–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hitti J, Frenkel LM, Stek AM, et al. Maternal toxicity with continuous nevirapine in pregnancy: results from PACTG 1022. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004;36:772–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    McKoy JM, Bennett CL, Scheetz MH, et al. Hepatotoxicity associated with long- versus short-course HIV-prophylactic nevirapine use: a systematic review and meta-analysis from the Research on Adverse Drug events And Reports (RADAR) project. Drug Saf. 2009;32:147–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ouyang DW, Brogly SB, Lu M, et al. Lack of increased hepatotoxicity in HIV-infected pregnant women receiving nevirapine compared with other antiretrovirals. Aids. 2010;24(1):109–14.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Umeh OC, Currier JS, Park JG, Cramer Y, Hermes AE, Fletcher CV. Sex differences in lopinavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetics among HIV-infected women and men. J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;51:1665–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Currier JS, Martorell C, Osiyemi O, et al. Effects of darunavir/ritonavir-based therapy on metabolic and anthropometric parameters in women and men over 48 weeks. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2011;25:333–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hoffman RM, Umeh OC, Garris C, Givens N, Currier JS. Evaluation of sex differences of fosamprenavir (with and without ritonavir) in HIV-infected men and women. HIV Clin Trials. 2007;8:371–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    •• Tubiana R, Le Chenadec J, Rouzioux C, et al. Factors associated with mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 despite a maternal viral load <500 copies/ml at delivery: a case–control study nested in the French perinatal cohort (EPF-ANRS CO1). Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50:585–96. Study showing that earlier initiation of ARTs during pregnancy may prevent transmission.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ford N, Mofenson L, Kranzer K, et al. Safety of efavirenz in first-trimester of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes from observational cohorts. Aids. 2011;24:1461–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Brogly SB, Abzug MJ, Watts DH, et al. Birth defects among children born to human immunodeficiency virus-infected women: pediatric AIDS clinical trials protocols 219 and 219C. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010;29:721–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ford N, Calmy A, Mofenson L. Safety of efavirenz in the first trimester of pregnancy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Aids. 2011;25:2301–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hsu HE, Rydzak CE, Cotich KL, et al. Quantifying the risks and benefits of efavirenz use in HIV-infected women of childbearing age in the USA. HIV Med. 2011;12:97–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Swaminathan S, Padmapriyadarsini C, Venkatesan P, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-daily nevirapine- or efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy in HIV-associated tuberculosis: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:716–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services. Oct 14th, 2011; 1–167. Available at < http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf>. Accessed March 17, 2012.
  61. 61.
    Powis KM, Kitch D, Ogwu A, et al. Increased risk of preterm delivery among HIV-infected women randomized to protease versus nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based HAART during pregnancy. J Infect Dis. 2011;204:506–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Dola CP, Khan R, Denicola N, et al. Combination antiretroviral therapy with protease inhibitors in HIV-infected pregnancy. J Perinat Med. 2011 Nov 2. doi:10.1515/JPM.2011.111.
  63. 63.
    •• Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:493–505. Latest study showing that early ART can prevent transmission to uninfected partners.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sha BE, Tierney C, Cohn SE, et al. Postpartum viral load rebound in HIV-1-infected women treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy: AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol A5150. HIV Clin Trials. 2011;12:9–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gielen AC, McDonnell K, Wu AW, O’Campo P, Faden R. Quality of life among women living with HIV: the importance violence, social support, and self care behaviors. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52:315–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Infectious DiseasesRush University Medical CenterChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations