Advertisement

European Geriatric Medicine

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 189–197 | Cite as

Older HIV-infected adults: complex patients—comorbidity (I)

  • Rocío Montejano
  • Rosa de Miguel
  • José I. BernardinoEmail author
Review

Abstract

Life expectancy in people living with HIV has increased in the past decades, since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral treatment. Increased survival comes along with new challenges for the HIV physician, as these patients will present comorbidities inherent to ageing that can appear more frequently and at younger age than the general population. The older HIV patient poses a unique challenge, as management should take into account different factors, some related to global ageing such as geriatric syndromes, traditional risk factors, social vulnerability, and age-related diseases, and others related to HIV infection like ART toxicity, drug–drug interactions, immune dysregulation and chronic inflammation. All the above can amount to great polypharmacy and multimorbidity that physician have to be aware of. Little is known about the best screening, management and treatment strategies to improve long-term health outcomes in this ageing population. The following article briefly reviews the main comorbidities that can affect the ageing HIV patient.

Keywords

HIV Ageing Comorbidities Chronicity 

Introduction

During the last decades, we have witnessed an important milestone in medicine: the introduction of potent antiretroviral treatment (ART) in people living with HIV (PLWH) and the increase of ART coverage worldwide has dramatically improved survival in PLWH. Recent data show that life expectancy is fast approaching that of the general population [1, 2]. The increase in life expectancy, an outstanding achievement, comes along with the ageing phenomenon in HIV medicine. A recent European modelling study based on data from the Athena cohort estimated that in 2030, 73% of PLWH in Europe will be aged 50 years or older, and that nearly 40% will be older than 65 [3]. This is a consequence of longer survival but also of an increasing frequency of new HIV diagnosis in people above their fifties. Data from the European Centre of Diseases Control in 2016 showed that 39% of PLWH are considered to be older adults and in some specific countries, they contribute to 20% of the new diagnosis[4]. These data are of utmost importance because older patients have higher risk of delayed diagnosis [5] and higher risk of progression—even after adjusting for CD4+ T cell count, HIV-RNA and stage of disease [6].

As a consequence of these demographic changes, age-related co-morbidities will increase. PLWH, although virologically controlled, are at higher risk for non-AIDS comorbidities such as cardiovascular diseases, malignancies, renal insufficiency, bone diseases and neurocognitive impairment [7]. Data from a variety of cohorts show that PLWH have a higher burden of comorbidities, especially in the older age group, in comparison with HIV-negative matched controls [8, 9, 10, 11].

These diseases are typically age related, but in the context of HIV, the explanation for their higher frequency is likely to be multifactorial. ART toxicity, higher frequency of classical risk factors, chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation are key players. HIV infection associates accelerated immunosenescence that affects both the innate and adaptive immunity. In fact, ageing and HIV infection share immunologic features such as inversion of CD4:CD8 ratio, expansion of terminally differentiated CD8+ T cells, higher levels of inflammatory cytokines and other co-infections such as CMV or herpes virus; which are related to non-AIDS-related morbidity and mortality in both PLWH and non-infected nonagenarians [12, 13, 14]. Some interesting reports show that HIV-infected patients have a biological age (measured by the so-called epigenetic clock) 5–7 years older than chronologic age [15, 16]. It is not yet fully understood how HIV affects the natural ageing process. It is not yet clear if HIV accelerates ageing by itself or if classic ageing-related co-morbidities, ART chronic immune activation and inflammation are driving the complexity of ageing in PLWH.

As HIV physicians have learnt from geriatricians, ageing should not be defined exclusively by the presence of disease, nor multimorbidity as just the sum of individual comorbidities. The complexity of the older HIV-infected patient is explained by multiple elements that merit a multidisciplinary approach (Fig. 1). There are more to understand the complexity of ageing than assessing non-infectious comorbidities, multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Other factors, such as social status, discrimination and stigma, can have a negative impact on co-morbidities [17].
Fig. 1

Clinical management complexity of older HIV-infected patients. COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, NCI neurocognitive impairment, CMV cytomegalovirus, HBV hepatitis B virus, HCV hepatitis C virus, S_DHEA dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate

If HIV infection has a differential impact on the ageing process and how this occurs is an important question. The following article reviews the main co-morbidities in older HIV-infected patients.

Metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors

There are data reporting PLWH have a higher proportion of hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes than the uninfected population [18]. However, it is difficult to assess to which extent HIV infection is responsible per se for their incidence in older HIV patients, since other factors—i.e., lifestyle—clearly predispose to these diseases. This could explain why we can find a prevalence of 86% hypertension, 74% dyslipidemia and 28% of diabetes in a cohort of HIV patients aged over 70 from Washington DC [19], but of 43, 60 and 22%, respectively, in another observational cohort of patients over 75 years from France [20].

European guidelines have acknowledged the need to detect these comorbidities and suggest initial treatment strategies, although specific recommendations for screening and management in HIV elderly patients are currently lacking.

Hypertension

A recent meta-analysis estimated that a quarter of HIV individuals have hypertension. The prevalence was two times higher in patients aged over 50 than those younger than 40 years of age. Interestingly, there was a significant association between ART exposure and a higher prevalence of hypertension that was consistent across all age groups [21]. Another meta-analysis of 39 studies including more than 44,000 patients concluded that ART was associated with higher systolic and diastolic BP, and a higher risk for hypertension in treated versus naïve HIV individuals [22]. However, ART was not linked to a significant risk of hypertension in a recent analysis from the D:A:D cohort [23]. Asides from traditional demographic, lifestyle and genetic risk factors for hypertension, and the aforementioned effect of ART, other HIV-related factors such as nadir CD4+ T-cells count, lipodystrophy, viral or ART-mediated endothelial dysfunction have been proposed as additional elements for developing hypertension [24].

With reports of increasing incidence of hypertension in HIV patients [25], the improvement in life expectancy and the established association between age and hypertension, it is not far-fetched to believe that the burden of this disease is set to dramatically increase in the elderly population. European AIDS clinical Society (EACS) HIV guidelines recommend initiating anti-hypertensive treatment in patients over 55 years with a calcium-channel blocker (CCB), for a blood pressure (BP) target under 140/90 mmHg [26]. However, CCB can potentially have significant drug–drug interactions (DDIs) with boosted protease inhibitors (PIs), efavirenz, nevirapine, etravirine and elvitegravir/cobicistat. DDIs are particularly important in the elderly population who are also prone to suffer drug-related side effects such as electrolyte disturbances or higher risk of falls owing to pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects, which complicate the management of hypertension in this population [27]. Also increasing the complexity of hypertension management is a diverse recommendation regarding BP target: current guidelines distance themselves from previous conservative recommendations and now suggest an systolic BP target under 130 mmHg (AHA/ACA guidelines) or 130–139 mmHg (ESC/ESH guidelines) for patients aged over 65 [28, 29]. Notwithstanding, the guidelines do stress out the need to individually assess the elderly patient’s functionality to tailor BP target and treatment. This is considerably important for the ageing HIV patient in whom frailty, comorbidity and polypharmacy ought to be deeply considered. Data from the EuroSIDA cohort showed that 58% of patients with indication for hypertension treatment modified their BP, but that among those less likely to attain BP control were the older patients, and those with dyslipidemia or diabetes [30]. Importantly, modelling data suggest that adequate control of hypertension and other traditional risk factors in HIV patients (i.e., smoking, dyslipidemia) would avert more cases of cardiovascular diseases than strictly HIV-related interventions [31].

Ideally, a clinical trial should be designed to address the particularities of older HIV-infected patient and find the right balance between a maximum benefit of BP control and a lower risk of side effects and DDIs.

Dyslipidemia

A metabolic model for HIV dyslipidemia suggests that patients have hyperlipolytic activity in peripheral tissues producing VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides (TG), with subsequent high levels of LDL and dysfunctional HDL [32]. In addition, ART is linked to dyslipidemia, mostly through PIs and to a lesser extent abacavir, with tenofovir disoproxyl fumarate (TDF) exerting a “protective” role that has not yet been observed with tenofovir alafenamide [33]. LDL-c—which is most related to cardiovascular disease—and total cholesterol (TC) increase with age, whereas HDL-c declines [34]. Statins are the most efficacious lipid-lowering therapy in primary and secondary prevention. Numerous studies demonstrate that statins reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, many showing greater event reduction in elderly than younger patients [35]. A meta-analysis did not observe any significant differences in the effect among statins on HDL, LDL or TG in HIV-infected patients, although atorvastatin did show greater benefit reducing total cholesterol [36].

Current general dyslipidemia guidelines use different risk scores to establish the thresholds for treatment and recommended LDL targets. ESC/EAS guidelines recommendations for statins in older patients with established cardiovascular disease are similar to those for younger ones but advise to start at a lower dose and titrate with caution, and also recommend considering their use in primary prevention [37]. EACS HIV guidelines recommend lipid-lowering therapy for patients with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes or at cardiovascular risk (10% risk at 10 years) to an ideal target of LDL < 80 mg/dL, with statins preferably in addition to lifestyle modifications and in some cases, change of ART [26].

A recent study reflected that physicians were less likely to prescribe statins to high risk HIV-infected patients compared to the uninfected population [38]. Asides from polypharmacy and DDIs, important concerns in the elderly population are new onset statin-associated diabetes—to which elderly patients are particularly at risk—and statin muscle toxicity, which is increased in ageing patients due to lower muscle mass and reduced drug metabolism [39, 40]. The risk of adverse side effects could be counterbalanced by the anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effect statins may exert upon HIV-infected patients [41].

Diabetes

The prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) in PLWH varies according to different cohorts. USA data revealed that one out of ten HIV patients under care had DM, a prevalence higher than the general population and closely related to age (those aged over 60 had a DM prevalence of nearly 20%), obesity, time since HIV diagnosis and mean CD4+ T-cells count [42]. In a Canadian study, HIV-infected patients aged over 50 had an incidence of DM of 1.61/100 person-years, 1.39 higher than uninfected men, and there was an association with prior exposure to first-generation ART [43]. ART initiation can induce weight gain within the first year that is associated with increased incidence of DM compared to similar weight gain in the uninfected population [44]. Older ART have been linked to DM: indinavir, ritonavir, atazanavir, zidovudine, didanosine, lamivudine, efavirenz, stavudine and nevirapine were linked to higher DM rates, although this finding was inconsistent across studies [45]. Considering the current recommendation to treat all patients, authors alert of the expected increase of the burden of DM.

Current diabetes guidelines recommend assessment of functional, social and psychological function to better establish glycaemic targets, as it is acknowledged that elderly individuals can suffer from specific conditions (cognitive decline, polypharmacy, urinary incontinence, falls) that may undermine their self-care capacity. An individualised approach to determine glycemic targets depending on functional status and co-morbidities allows for less stringent A1C targets (< 7.5 for the elderly vs. < 8–8.5% for the frail). EACS guidelines recommend treatment initially with metformin and adding other oral antidiabetics or insulin to achieve a target A1C < 6.5–7% [26]. Interestingly, switching to an integrase inhibitor—and more evident with dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine—has been recently associated with higher weight gain and a non-significant increase in A1C compared to continuing treatment with efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine; the importance of this finding is likely to be better defined in the coming years [46].

The effect of ageing combined with both HIV and diabetes should be better outlined, as, for example, all three can affect cognitive function through different pathways but can also synergistically hasten their effects.

Cardiovascular disease

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of mortality in PLWH, although recent data from USA show a decrease in cardiovascular mortality that probably reflects earlier ART initiation and better management of CV risk factors [47]. A recent modelling study estimates that the incidence of CVD will increase 55% between 2015 and 2030 [31]. PLWH have a higher prevalence of different cardiovascular diseases such as myocardial infarction [48], stroke [49], peripheral artery disease [50], sudden cardiac death [51] and heart failure [52]. A recent systematic review found that global risk for cardiovascular diseases in PLWH is increased by twofold and is responsible for a high amount of disability-adjusted life-years [53].

There are some special issues regarding the association between myocardial infarction and some antiretroviral drugs such as abacavir [54] and darunavir [55]. The selection of ART is critical especially in older HIV-infected patients. Recent data show that the use of PIs in PLWH with heart failure is associated with higher mortality and greater hospitalizations rates [56]. Older HIV-infected patients should be treated with lipid-friendly drugs whenever possible. Integrase inhibitor-based regimens are preferred due to their potency, low drug interactions and long-term safety profile.

Although the choice of ART is important to reduce inflammation and metabolic impact, it is most important to adequately control cardiovascular risk factors [31]. One of the most effective interventions is smoking cessation, as smoking contributes to a higher myocardial infarction risk among PLWH in comparison with general population [57]. EACS guidelines recommend an aggressive management of cardiovascular risk factors and pro-active ART switching to drugs with the most favourable metabolic profile.

Prevention strategies of cardiovascular diseases in PLWH should be the same as the general population, with some specific precautions on DDIs and adverse events in older patients. However, data from several studies show that statins and acetylsalicilic acid are less prescribed in PLWH in comparison with general population [38, 58]. This could be explained by DDIs, polypharmacy, poor drug adherence and specific concerns regarding the use of statins in the elderly (greater adverse events, fall on functional status, and influence on cognitive performance) [39].

Until interventional studies are available to better address the primary and secondary prevention strategies in older HIV-infected patients, we should apply the evidence available for the general population.

Kidney diseases

In the French Dat’AIDS cohort, including more than 17,000 patients aged over 50, the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) increased significantly in HIV-infected geriatric population (> 75 years) compared to those aged between 50 and 74 (29.4% and 4.5%, respectively), despite similar rates of virologic suppression [20]. A comparison of two EuroSIDA cross-sectional cohorts (2006 and 2014) yielded an older population in the most recent cohort (44% of patients aged over 50) that, despite higher proportion of virologic control and better immunologic status, had the largest increase in CKD prevalence, particularly in individuals aged over 60 (18.5% in 2006 vs. 23.2% in 2014) [11]. Guaraldi et al. [59] observed that CKD was significantly more prevalent in HIV patients compared to uninfected controls across all ages, and reported a prevalence of 24% of CKD in HIV patients aged over 60.

Asides from traditional risk factors for CKD, HIV-infected patients have specific factors (low CD4+ T-cells count, high viral load, HIV-nephropathy, nephrotoxic ART, HCV co-infection) that may predispose to the disease. Notably, the prevalence of HIV-associated nephropathy has decreased in high-income countries, where other renal manifestations such as focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis and HIV-associated immune complex kidney disease have become more prevalent. Indinavir, atazanavir, PIs and TDF are associated with increased risk of CKD with age and lower baseline glomerular filtration rate being risk factors. Dolutegravir and cobicistat inhibit tubular creatinine transport, although this does not translate intrinsic nephrotoxicity [60]. Elderly PLWH are expected to have an additional reduction on renal function apart from the physiological ageing decline (10 ml/min decline in glomerular filtration rate per decade).

Management of CKD in the elderly includes treatment of co-morbidities, acidosis, uraemia, anaemia, avoiding fluid overload and nephrotoxic drugs. Older HIV-infected patients are particularly at risk for DDIs and adverse reactions owing to aged- related altered bioavailability and underlying renal disease. To avoid them, treatment simplification using as fewer drugs and doses as possible, following the axiom “start low, go slow” for new drugs and coordination among health providers are advisable, along with renal function control and regular review of treatment. CKD also is linked to frailty; so, a multidisciplinary approach that takes into consideration adequate nutrition, exercise training, medication review and appropriate shared decision-making and anticipatory planning in end-stage renal disease is also desirable [61].

One of the cornerstones of treating kidney disease in HIV patients is ART. Other strategies include adequate control of co-morbidities, ACEIs or angiotensin II inhibitors if hypertension or proteinuria are present, identifying and withdrawing offending drugs and switching ART when treatment-associated toxicity is suspected. Specifically, the nephrotoxic effect of specific drugs can be reversed with drug discontinuation [62]. ART simplification in this setting may reduce drug-cumulated toxicity and timely referral to nephrologist is warranted.

Bone diseases

PLWH face an increased risk of osteoporosis and fragility fractures associated with ageing, chronic HIV, and the toxicity arising from long-term ART. Osteoporosis prevalence in PLWH is estimated between 5 and 20% and according to some authors close to 15%, more than three times higher compared to the uninfected population [63, 64]. In terms of bone mineral density (BMD) globally, a decrease up to 6 times higher has been observed.

The pathogenesis of low BMD and osteoporosis in HIV is unclear. It seems to be the result of the combination of a direct mechanism—the pro-inflammatory state, immune activation, bone cells modulation by HIV proteins—and indirect mechanisms secondary to ART and the excess of common risk factors (low weight, smoking, increased basal metabolism, opioids intake) more prevalent in PLWH [65, 66, 67, 68]. Recently, several studies have published the association between an increased risk of low BMD with time of HIV infection, viral load, more severe HIV disease (reflected as lower CD4+ T cells nadir) and ART, especially TDF [66, 69].

It is well established that exposure to ART affects BMD, but differing between ART classes and individual antiretroviral agents within a particular drug class. ART initiation is linked to bone loss, up to 4% decline depending on the drugs used, which later stabilises [63]. Data from the SMART study, published in 2009, that compared intermittent ART guided by CD4+ T-cells count vs. continuous ART, support this hypothesis. Patients treated with ART continuously presented a decrease in annual BMD of 0.8% in the hip, 0.4% in the spine, compared to patients with intermittent ART who presented a significantly lower decrease [70]. The bone substudy of START clinical trial, which compared patients who started treatment with CD4+ T-cells count greater than 500 cells/μL with patients who deferred treatment (until they reached 350 cells/μL), demonstrated also the association between ART and BMD loss. In the spine, an average difference in 2.2% lower BMD was found in the immediate ART group and 2.1% lower in hip in the immediate ART group [71, 72]. Greater losses in BMD are observed with ART containing certain nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and PIs [73]. Nowadays, TDF is the ART more implicated in BMD loss both in naïve and ART experienced [73, 74, 75]. Newer strategies such as nuke-sparing regimens have demonstrated improvements in BMD [76]. In the last years, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) has been used instead of TDF and has demonstrated smaller reductions in hip and lumbar spine BMD compared with TDF [77].

Although the loss of bone mass is accepted as a surrogate marker for fragility fractures in the general population, the correlation among BMD, the incidence of fractures and ART is not well established. Host factors, HIV-specific variables and comorbidities contribute to the risk of femoral and vertebral fractures [78, 79, 80]. There is a strong association between HIV infection and the incidence of hip fractures, with a fivefold increase in HIV-infected patients, regardless of sex, age, smoking, alcohol consumption and comorbidities [81]. It has also shown a 75% increase in the risk of all clinical fractures and a 60% increase in the risk of clinical fractures other than hip in HIV-infected patients, corroborating previous studies showing similar associations [81, 82]. Previous studies have published that cumulative exposure to TDF and, among PIs, lopinavir/ritonavir was independently predictive of increased risk of osteoporotic fracture [80]. However recently, data from EuroSIDA study showed that past and current exposure to TDF, but not cumulative exposure, is independently associated with increased fracture risk among PLWH, and there was no association for any other ART [83].

Malignancies

Cancer risk rises with age, although the age-related risk of individual types of cancers varies. PLWH are at increased risk of malignancies compared with the general population: this is the case for AIDS-defining cancers, but also for most of non-AIDS-defining cancers, with some exceptions [84, 85]. A recent case–control study of individuals over 65 years showed that 10% of PLWH developed cancer over a period of 5 years [86].

The incidence of AIDS-defining cancers is expected to decline with early ART initiation. Data from a recent study showed that there is a decline with age in AIDS-defining cancers, from 77% of excess of cancer to 22% for people aged 70 and older [87].

Not all non-AIDS-defining cancers show an increased prevalence in PLWH. Some are clearly increased such as anal, lung, Hodgkin disease, and hepatocellular carcinoma, while others seem to be less frequent (prostate and mama) [88]. Immunodeficiency, increased rates of smoking and oncogenic virus co-infections are key players [89, 90]. A low CD4+ T cell count is associated with an increased incidence of certain non-AIDS-defining malignancies. Starting ART earlier may decrease the rate of developing many common cancers, especially lung cancer. The incidence of lung cancer was significantly decreased with a higher current CD4+ T cell count; however, older age significantly increases the rate of lung cancer and was a strong predictor for non-AIDS-defining cancers [91].

Treating cancer in older HIV-infected individuals is challenging, as there are specific factors such as DDIs, increased risk of opportunistic infections, concomitant co-morbidities, polypharmacy, etc. Preventive measures are critical and recent reports suggest decreases in the incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and some non-AIDS-defining cancers (anus, liver, and lung) [92, 93]. Efforts should focus on tobacco cessation as PLWH lose more life-years through smoking than through HIV infection [94].

Conclusion

Despite earlier ART initiation and better-tolerated drugs with good long-term safety, age-associated diseases are more frequent in PLWH. We do not yet know if the ageing effect on co-morbidities and mortality in PLWH is stronger in comparison with the general population. Whether decreasing the residual inflammation, intrinsic to HIV infection and physiologic ageing, will be beneficial in terms of mortality and morbidity remains to be known. In the meantime, HIV physicians should provide the highest quality of care with regards to screening, prevention and treatment of age-related diseases, ideally with a multidisciplinary approach. Early HIV diagnosis and treatment in older patients, improvement of the cascade of care, reduction of social isolation, stigma and health inequities should be part of an integrative programme aimed at reducing the gap between older PLWH and the general population.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Rosa de Miguel is supported by a Río Hortega fellowship from the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Bernardino reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. Dr de Miguel reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences and Janssen Pharma outside the submitted work. Dr Montejano received personal fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study informed consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Lohse N, Hansen A-BE, Pedersen G, Kronborg G, Gerstoft J, Sørensen HT, Vaeth M, Obel N (2007) Survival of persons with and without HIV infection in Denmark, 1995–2005. Ann Intern Med 146:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    May MT, Gompels M, Delpech V et al (2014) Impact on life expectancy of HIV-1 positive individuals of CD4+ cell count and viral load response to antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 28:1193–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smit M, Brinkman K, Geerlings S, Smit C, Thyagarajan K, Sighem AV, de Wolf F, Hallett TB, ATHENA observational cohort (2015) Future challenges for clinical care of an ageing population infected with HIV: a modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis 15:810–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    HIV/AIDS surveillance in Europe 2017–2016 data (2017) pp 1–124. https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/presentation-hivaids-surveillance-europe-2017-2016-data. Accessed 3 Nov 2018
  5. 5.
    Sobrino-Vegas P, Moreno S, Rubio R et al (2016) Impact of late presentation of HIV infection on short-, mid- and long-term mortality and causes of death in a multicenter national cohort: 2004–2013. J Infect 72:587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Collaboration of Observational HIV Epidemiological Research Europe (COHERE) Study Group, Sabin CA, Smith CJ et al (2008) Response to combination antiretroviral therapy: variation by age. AIDS 22:1463–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deeks SG, Lewin SR, Havlir DV (2013) The end of AIDS: HIV infection as a chronic disease. Lancet 382:1525–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schouten J, Wit FW, Stolte IG, Kootstra NA, van der Valk M, Geerlings SE, Prins M, Reiss P, AGEhIV Cohort Study Group (2014) Cross-sectional comparison of the prevalence of age-associated comorbidities and their risk factors between HIV-infected and uninfected individuals: the AGEhIV cohort study. Clin Infect Dis 59:1787–1797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hasse B, Ledergerber B, Furrer H, Battegay M, Hirschel B, Cavassini M, Bertisch B, Bernasconi E, Weber R, Swiss HIV Cohort Study (2011) Morbidity and aging in HIV-infected persons: the Swiss HIV cohort study. Clinical Infectious Diseases 53:1130–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wong C, Gange SJ, Moore RD et al (2018) Multimorbidity among persons living with human immunodeficiency virus in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 66:1230–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pelchen-Matthews A, Ryom L, Borges ÁH et al (2018) Aging and the evolution of comorbidities among HIV-positive individuals in a European cohort. AIDS 32:2405–2416Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grund B, Baker JV, Deeks SG et al (2016) Relevance of interleukin-6 and d-dimer for serious non-AIDS morbidity and death among HIV-positive adults on suppressive antiretroviral therapy. PLoS One 11:e0155100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tenorio AR, Zheng Y, Bosch RJ et al (2014) Soluble markers of inflammation and coagulation but not T-cell activation predict non-AIDS-defining morbid events during suppressive antiretroviral treatment. J Infect Dis 210:1248–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wikby A, Nilsson B-O, Forsey R, Thompson J, Strindhall J, Löfgren S, Ernerudh J, Pawelec G, Ferguson F, Johansson B (2006) The immune risk phenotype is associated with IL-6 in the terminal decline stage: findings from the Swedish NONA immune longitudinal study of very late life functioning. Mech Ageing Dev 127:695–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gross AM, Jaeger PA, Kreisberg JF et al (2016) Methylome-wide analysis of chronic HIV infection reveals five-year increase in biological age and epigenetic targeting of HLA. Mol Cell 62:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rickabaugh TM, Baxter RM, Sehl M et al (2015) Acceleration of age-associated methylation patterns in HIV-1-infected adults. PLoS One 10:e0119201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Monge S, Alejos B, Dronda F et al (2013) Inequalities in HIV disease management and progression in migrants from Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa living in Spain. HIV Medicine 14:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Triant VA, Lee H, Hadigan C, Grinspoon SK (2007) Increased acute myocardial infarction rates and cardiovascular risk factors among patients with human immunodeficiency virus disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92:2506–2512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levy ME, Greenberg AE, Hart R, Powers Happ L, Hadigan C, Castel A, DC Cohort Executive Committee (2017) High burden of metabolic comorbidities in a citywide cohort of HIV outpatients: evolving health care needs of people aging with HIV in Washington, DC. HIV Medicine 18:724–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Allavena C, Hanf M, Rey D et al (2018) Antiretroviral exposure and comorbidities in an aging HIV-infected population: the challenge of geriatric patients. PLoS One 13:e0203895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xu Y, Chen X, Wang K (2017) Global prevalence of hypertension among people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Soc Hypertens 11:530–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nduka CU, Stranges S, Sarki AM, Kimani PK, Uthman OA (2016) Evidence of increased blood pressure and hypertension risk among people living with HIV on antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Hum Hypertens 30:355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hatleberg CI, Ryom L, d’Arminio Monforte A et al (2018) Association between exposure to antiretroviral drugs and the incidence of hypertension in HIV-positive persons: the data collection on adverse events of anti-HIV drugs (D:A:D) study. HIV Med 19:605–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Zoest RA, van den Born B-JH, Reiss P (2017) Hypertension in people living with HIV. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 12:513–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Okeke NL, Davy T, Eron JJ, Napravnik S (2016) Hypertension among HIV-infected patients in clinical care, 1996–2013. Clin Infect Dis 63:242–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    European AIDS Clinical Society Guidelines (2018) Version 9.1 Octubre 2018. 1–104. http://www.eacsociety.org/files/2018_guidelines-9.1-english.pdf. Accessed 3 Nov 2018
  27. 27.
    Kaiser EA, Lotze U, Schäfer HH (2014) Increasing complexity: which drug class to choose for treatment of hypertension in the elderly? Clin Interv Aging 9:459–475Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS et al (2018) 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: executive summary: a report of the american college of cardiology/American heart association task force on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 138:e426–e483Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W et al (2018) 2018 practice guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension and the European Society of Cardiology: ESH/ESC task force for the management of arterial hypertension. J Hypertens 36:2284–2309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shahmanesh M, Schultze A, Burns F et al (2016) The cardiovascular risk management for people living with HIV in Europe: how well are we doing? AIDS 30:2505–2518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smit M, van Zoest RA, Nichols BE et al (2018) Cardiovascular disease prevention policy in human immunodeficiency virus: recommendations from a modeling study. Clin Infect Dis 66:743–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Calvo M, Martinez E (2014) Update on metabolic issues in HIV patients. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 9:332–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maggi P, Di Biagio A, Rusconi S et al (2017) Cardiovascular risk and dyslipidemia among persons living with HIV: a review. BMC Infect Dis 17:551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liu H-H, Li J-J (2015) Aging and dyslipidemia: a review of potential mechanisms. Ageing Res Rev 19:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Katsiki N, Kolovou G, Perez-Martinez P, Mikhailidis DP (2018) Dyslipidaemia in the elderly: to treat or not to treat? Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 11:259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Banach M, Dinca M, Ursoniu S et al (2016) A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of statin therapy on plasma lipid concentrations in HIV-infected patients. Pharmacol Res 111:343–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Catapano AL, Graham I, De Backer G et al (2016) 2016 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias. Eur Heart J 37:2999–3058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ladapo JA, Richards AK, DeWitt CM, Harawa NT, Shoptaw S, Cunningham WE, Mafi JN (2017) Disparities in the quality of cardiovascular care between HIV-infected versus hiv-uninfected adults in the United States: a cross-sectional study. J Am Heart Assoc.  https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.117.007107 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gurwitz JH, Go AS, Fortmann SP (2016) Statins for primary prevention in older adults: uncertainty and the need for more evidence. JAMA 316:1971–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bellosta S, Corsini A (2018) Statin drug interactions and related adverse reactions: an update. Expert Opin Drug Saf 17:25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eckard AR, McComsey GA (2015) The role of statins in the setting of HIV infection. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 12:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hernandez-Romieu AC, Garg S, Rosenberg ES, Thompson-Paul AM, Skarbinski J (2017) Is diabetes prevalence higher among HIV-infected individuals compared with the general population? Evidence from MMP and NHANES 2009-2010. BMJ Open Diab Res Care 5:e000304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Samad F, Harris M, Puskas CM, Ye M, Chia J, Chacko S, Bondy GP, Lima VD, Montaner JS, Guillemi SA (2017) Incidence of diabetes mellitus and factors associated with its development in HIV-positive patients over the age of 50. BMJ Open Diab Res Care 5:e000457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Herrin M, Tate JP, Akgün KM et al (2016) Weight gain and incident diabetes among HIV-infected veterans initiating antiretroviral therapy compared with uninfected individuals. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 73:228–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nansseu JR, Bigna JJ, Kaze AD, Noubiap JJ (2018) Incidence and risk factors for prediabetes and diabetes mellitus among HIV-infected adults on antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiology 29:431–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Norwood J, Turner M, Bofill C et al (2017) Brief report: weight gain in persons with HIV switched from efavirenz-based to integrase strand transfer inhibitor-based regimens. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 76:527–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rodger AJ, Lodwick R, Schechter M et al (2013) Mortality in well controlled HIV in the continuous antiretroviral therapy arms of the SMART and ESPRIT trials compared with the general population. AIDS 27:973–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Freiberg MS, Chang C-CH, Kuller LH et al (2013) HIV infection and the risk of acute myocardial infarction. JAMA Intern Med 173:614–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chow FC, Regan S, Feske S, Meigs JB, Grinspoon SK, Triant VA (2012) Comparison of ischemic stroke incidence in HIV-infected and non-HIV-infected patients in a US health care system. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 60:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Beckman JA, Duncan MS, Alcorn CW et al (2018) Association of human immunodeficiency virus infection and risk of peripheral artery disease. Circulation 138:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tseng ZH, Secemsky EA, Dowdy D, Vittinghoff E, Moyers B, Wong JK, Havlir DV, Hsue PY (2012) Sudden cardiac death in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:1891–1896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Freiberg MS, Chang C-CH, Skanderson M et al (2017) Association between HIV infection and the risk of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and preserved ejection fraction in the antiretroviral therapy era: results from the veterans aging cohort study. JAMA Cardiol 2:536–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shah ASV, Stelzle D, Lee KK et al (2018) Global burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in people living with HIV. Circulation 138:1100–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    DAD Study Group, Sabin CA, Worm SW et al (2008) Use of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and risk of myocardial infarction in HIV-infected patients enrolled in the D:A: D study: a multi-cohort collaboration. Lancet 371:1417–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ryom L, Lundgren JD, El-Sadr W et al (2018) Cardiovascular disease and use of contemporary protease inhibitors: the D:A: D international prospective multicohort study. Lancet HIV 5:e291–e300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Alvi RM, Neilan AM, Tariq N et al (2018) Protease inhibitors and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HIV and heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 72:518–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rasmussen LD, Helleberg M, May MT, Afzal S, Kronborg G, Larsen CS, Pedersen C, Gerstoft J, Nordestgaard BG, Obel N (2015) Myocardial infarction among Danish HIV-infected individuals: population-attributable fractions associated with smoking. Clin Infect Dis 10:1–9Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    De Socio GV, Ricci E, Parruti G et al (2016) Statins and aspirin use in HIV-infected people: gap between European AIDS Clinical Society guidelines and clinical practice: the results from HIV-HY study. Infection 44:589–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Guaraldi G, Orlando G, Zona S, Menozzi M, Carli F, Garlassi E, Berti A, Rossi E, Roverato A, Palella F (2011) Premature age-related comorbidities among HIV-infected persons compared with the general population. Clin Infect Dis 53:1120–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yombi JC, Pozniak A, Boffito M, Jones R, Khoo S, Levy J, Post FA (2014) Antiretrovirals and the kidney in current clinical practice: renal pharmacokinetics, alterations of renal function and renal toxicity. AIDS 28:621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nixon AC, Bampouras TM, Pendleton N, Woywodt A, Mitra S, Dhaygude A (2018) Frailty and chronic kidney disease: current evidence and continuing uncertainties. Clin Kidney J 11:236–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ryom L, Mocroft A, Kirk O et al (2017) Predictors of estimated glomerular filtration rate progression, stabilization or improvement after chronic renal impairment in HIV-positive individuals. AIDS 31:1261–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mallon PWG (2014) Aging with HIV: osteoporosis and fractures. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 9:428–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Brown TT, Qaqish RB (2006) Antiretroviral therapy and the prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis: a meta-analytic review. AIDS 20:2165–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Battalora LA, Young B, Overton ET (2014) Bones, fractures, antiretroviral therapy and HIV. Curr Infect Dis Rep 16:393–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Grijsen ML, Vrouenraets SME, Steingrover R, Lips P, Reiss P, Wit FWNM, Prins JM (2010) High prevalence of reduced bone mineral density in primary HIV-1-infected men. AIDS 24:2233–2238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    van Vonderen MG, Lips P, van Agtmael MA, Hassink EA, Brinkman K, Geerlings SE, Sutinen J, Ristola M, Danner SA, Reiss P (2009) First line zidovudine/lamivudine/lopinavir/ritonavir leads to greater bone loss compared to nevirapine/lopinavir/ritonavir. AIDS 23:1367–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Dolan SE, Carpenter S, Grinspoon S (2007) Effects of weight, body composition, and testosterone on bone mineral density in HIV-infected women. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 45:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Yin MT, Shane E (2006) Low bone-mineral density in patients with HIV: pathogenesis and clinical significance. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes 13:497–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Grund B, Peng G, Gibert CL, Hoy JF, Isaksson RL, Shlay JC, Martinez E, Reiss P, Visnegarwala F, Carr AD (2009) Continuous antiretroviral therapy decreases bone mineral density. AIDS 23:1519–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Carr A, Grund B, Neuhaus J et al (2015) Prevalence of and risk factors for low bone mineral density in untreated HIV infection: a substudy of the INSIGHT strategic timing of antiretroviral treatment (START) trial. HIV Med 16(Suppl 1):137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hoy JF, Grund B, Roediger M et al (2017) Immediate initiation of antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection accelerates bone loss relative to deferring therapy: findings from the START bone mineral density substudy, a randomized trial. J Bone Miner Res 32:1945–1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    McComsey GA, Kitch D, Daar ES, Tierney C, Jahed NC, Tebas P, Myers L, Melbourne K, Ha B, Sax PE (2011) Bone mineral density and fractures in antiretroviral-naive persons randomized to receive abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine along with efavirenz or atazanavir-ritonavir: Aids Clinical Trials Group A5224s, a substudy of ACTG A5202. J Infect Dis 203:1791–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Stellbrink H-J, Orkin C, Arribas JR et al (2010) Comparison of changes in bone density and turnover with abacavir-lamivudine versus tenofovir-emtricitabine in HIV-infected adults: 48-week results from the ASSERT study. Clin Infect Dis 51:963–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Cotter AG, Vrouenraets SME, Brady JJ, Wit FW, Fux CA, Furrer H, Brinkman K, Sabin CA, Reiss P, Mallon PWG (2013) Impact of switching from zidovudine to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on bone mineral density and markers of bone metabolism in virologically suppressed HIV-1 infected patients; a substudy of the PREPARE study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98:1659–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bernardino JI, Mocroft A, Mallon PW et al (2015) Bone mineral density and inflammatory and bone biomarkers after darunavir-ritonavir combined with either raltegravir or tenofovir-emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1: a substudy of the NEAT001/ANRS143 randomised trial. Lancet HIV 2:e464–e473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sax PE, Wohl D, Yin MT et al (2015) Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, coformulated with elvitegravir, cobicistat, and emtricitabine, for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: two randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trials. Lancet 385:2606–2615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Young B, Dao CN, Buchacz K, Baker R, Brooks JT, the HIV Outpatient Study (HOPS) Investigators (2011) Increased Rates of Bone Fracture Among HIV-Infected Persons in the HIV Outpatient Study (HOPS) Compared With the US General Population, 2000-2006. Clin Infect Dis 52:1061–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Grant PM, Kitch D, McComsey GA et al (2013) Low baseline CD4+ count is associated with greater bone mineral density loss after antiretroviral therapy initiation. Clin Infect Dis 57:1483–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Bedimo R, Maalouf NM, Zhang S, Drechsler H, Tebas P (2012) Osteoporotic fracture risk associated with cumulative exposure to tenofovir and other antiretroviral agents. AIDS 26:825–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Güerri-Fernandez R, Vestergaard P, Carbonell C, Knobel H, Avilés FF, Castro AS, Nogués X, Prieto-Alhambra D, Diez-Perez A (2013) HIV infection is strongly associated with hip fracture risk, independently of age, gender, and comorbidities: a population-based cohort study. J Bone Miner Res 28:1259–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Triant VA, Brown TT, Lee H, Grinspoon SK (2008) Fracture prevalence among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected versus non-HIV-infected patients in a large US healthcare system. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93:3499–3504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Borges ÁH, Hoy J, Florence E et al (2017) Antiretrovirals, fractures, and osteonecrosis in a large international HIV cohort. Clin Infect Dis 64:1413–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Silverberg MJ, Lau B, Achenbach CJ et al (2015) Cumulative incidence of cancer among persons with HIV in North America: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 163:507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Robbins HA, Shiels MS, Pfeiffer RM, Engels EA (2014) Epidemiologic contributions to recent cancer trends among HIV-infected people in the United States. AIDS 28:881–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Yanik EL, Katki HA, Engels EA (2016) Cancer risk among the HIV-infected elderly in the United States. AIDS 30:1663–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Robbins HA, Pfeiffer RM, Shiels MS, Li J, Hall HI, Engels EA (2015) Excess cancers among HIV-infected people in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju503 Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Shiels MS, Cole SR, Kirk GD, Poole C (2009) A meta-analysis of the incidence of non-AIDS cancers in HIV-infected individuals. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 52:611–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Silverberg MJ, Chao C, Leyden WA, Xu L, Tang B, Horberg MA, Klein D, Quesenberry CP, Towner WJ, Abrams DI (2009) HIV infection and the risk of cancers with and without a known infectious cause. AIDS 23:2337–2345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Grulich AE, van Leeuwen MT, Falster MO, Vajdic CM (2007) Incidence of cancers in people with HIV/AIDS compared with immunosuppressed transplant recipients: a meta-analysis. Lancet 370:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Reekie J, Kosa C, Engsig F et al (2010) Relationship between current level of immunodeficiency and non-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-defining malignancies. Cancer 116:5306–5315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Hernández-Ramírez RU, Shiels MS, Dubrow R, Engels EA (2017) Cancer risk in HIV-infected people in the USA from 1996 to 2012: a population-based, registry-linkage study. Lancet HIV 4:e495–e504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Shiels MS, Islam JY, Rosenberg PS, Hall HI, Jacobson E, Engels EA (2018) Projected cancer incidence rates and burden of incident cancer cases in HIV-infected adults in the united states through 2030. Ann Intern Med 168:866–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Helleberg M, May MT, Ingle SM et al (2015) Smoking and life expectancy among HIV-infected individuals on antiretroviral therapy in Europe and North America. AIDS 29:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Geriatric Medicine Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HIV Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Edificio Consultas Externas. Planta SemisótanoHospital Universitario La Paz, IdiPAZMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations