Pathology in children of HIV women

Abstract

Some pathologies are frequent among children exposed to antiretroviral agents during perinatal life. It is crucial to carry out long-term studies to assess the safety of this therapy.

in utero HIV exposure and the early nutritional environment influence neurodevelopment in infants before age three: findings from an evidenced review and meta-analysis

“…While some studies suggested that infants who are HEU may also experience poorer motor outcomes in comparison to HUU 41,42 , others reported no differences in average motor scores between the two groups 47,49,50,53,50 or evidence of motor delay for infants who are HEU 54,50 . One study reported psychomotor developmental delay in 3.64% of their sample (206 HEU) between birth and 18 months in comparison to a cited population rate of 1.1-2.5% 39 . Overall, HEU did not have a significant effect on BSID-III tine (−0.02 [-0.08, 0.04]) or gross (−0.10 [-0.29, 0.09]) motor subscale scores in three studies (Figure 4) from birth to 36 months, in comparison to HUU.…”

Sexual Ambiguity Associated with "in utero" Antiretroviral Exposure

“…Although so far was considered that administering the medication in the first trimester of pregnancy, when organogenesis occurs, could cause more side effects and malformations like hypospadias (21-23) than using them in the second or third trimester of pregnancy; this assumption was not confirmed (23)(24)(25).…”

In Utero HIV Exposure and the Early Nutritional Environment Influence Infant Neurodevelopment: Findings from an Evidenced Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Studies comparing neurodevelopmental outcomes based on infant HIV exposure status (primary inclusion criteria, n = 15) are summarised in Figure 1, and studies that reported on both early life nutrition-related variables and infant neurodevelopment (primary and secondary criteria, n = 9) are summarised in Figure 2. Within the 15 studies that met the primary inclusion criteria only, there were six that reported on longitudinal neurodevelopmental outcomes (for cognitive (n = 3), motor (n = 4), language (n = 1), and neurostructural (n = 1) themes) for infants before age three [34,[36][37][38][39][40], and nine that reported cross-sectional data (for cognitive (n = 8), motor (n = 8), language (n = 4), behavioural (n = 4), and neurostructural themes (n = 2)) [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. For the nine studies that included analyses on early life nutrition-related variables and infant neurodevelopment, cohort characteristics and comparison groups based on nutritional intervention (if relevant) are reported in Figure 2.…”

“…While some studies suggested that infants who are HEU may also experience poorer motor outcomes in comparison to HUU [41,42], others reported no differences in average motor scores between the two groups [47,49,50,53,56] or evidence of motor delay for infants who are HEU [54,56]. One study reported psychomotor developmental delay in 3.64% of their sample (206 HEU) between birth and 18 months in comparison to a cited population rate of 1.1-2.5% [39]. Overall, HEU did not have a significant effect on BSID-III fine (−0.02 (−0.08, 0.04)) or gross (−0.10 ( −0.29, 0.09)) motor subscale scores in three studies (Figure 4) from birth to 36 months, in comparison to HUU.…”