Evidence Hub

Risk of Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia in Patients With HIV in Taiwan: Evidence from a Cross‐sectional Study

Jiun-Yi Wang, Kuang-Hua Huang, Chih-Jaan Tai, Shuo-Yan Gau, Tung-Han Tsai, Chun-Nan Wu, Chien-Ying Lee

In Vivo, 2025

18,929 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background/Aim: Studies have demonstrated that patients with HIV are at a higher risk of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP). Epidemiological knowledge of the risk of PJP among patients with HIV infection is lacking. This study aimed to assess the risk of PJP among patients with HIV. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted using the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. The participants were 18,929 patients with new-onset HIV infection from 2002 to 2015. Each patient was matched with four HIV-negative patients for age, sex, insured salary, urbanization status, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and year of enrollment. The logistic regression with adjustment for relevant variables was performed to analyze the risk of PJP among patients with HIV at the 3-year follow-up. Sensitivity analysis was performed to compare the risk of PJP among different cohorts (patients with chronic kidney disease) and at different follow-up periods (6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up). Results: Patients with HIV had a higher risk of PJP [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=199.36; 95% confidence interval (CI)=119.47-332.66] than HIV-negative individuals at the 3-year follow-up. Male patients had a higher risk of PJP (aOR=1.62; 95%CI=1.18-2.24) than female patients. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) had a higher risk of PJP (aOR=1.74; 95%CI=1.27-2.39) at the 3-year follow-up. Conclusion: Patients with HIV had a higher risk of PJP. Male…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 18,929 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free