Evidence Hub

Dual Infection of Different Clusters of HIV in People Living with HIV Worldwide: A Meta-Analysis Based on Next-Generation Sequencing Studies

De-Fu Yuan, Fei Zhao, Shan-Shan Liu, Yang-Yang Liu, Hong-Xia Yan, Li-Feng Liu, Bin Su, Bei Wang

AIDS Patients Care and STDs, 2024

1,475 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

To understand the global dual HIV infection (DI) profiles comprehensively, the databases Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were the data sources up to March 31, 2024 (PROSPERO: CRD42023388328). Stata and R-language software were used to analyze the extracted data. Publication bias was assessed using Egger’s test. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the stability of the combined effect values. Data from 17 eligible studies across four continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America) with 1,475 subjects were used. The combined dual infection rate (DIR) was 10.47% (95% CI: 7.11%−14.38%) without a time trend (p = 0.105). The DIRs of target population groups differed significantly, with FSWs having the highest DIR (15.14%), followed by general population (12.08%), MSM (11.84%), and DUs (9.76%). The subtype profiles of 122 patients with dual infection were extracted, and the results showed that intrasubtype infections were predominant in coinfection (16/22, 72.73%) and superinfection (68/100, 68.00%) groups, with the subtype pattern B and B accounts for the largest proportion. The global dual infection rate may be underestimated, even though the data fluctuated around 10% and showed no time trend. The occurrence of DI indicated that individuals still do not acquire sufficient resistance to HIV even after primary infection, which could potentially compromise the patient’s treatment effect and lead to the emergence of new subtypes, posing a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,475 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