Abstract
BACKGROUND: From 2004 onwards, the Chinese government has freely offered complimentary Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) to Chinese HIV/AIDS patients, alongside the prescribed first line therapy of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Thus, we aimed to explore the effectiveness and safety of CHM for patients with HIV/AIDS. METHODS: The data from the Guangxi pilot database and antiviral treatment sites database have been respectively developed into two datasets in this prospective cohort real-world study, the CHM combined HAART group (the integrated group) and the HAART group. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed and the longitudinal data were analyzed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) model with an autocorrelation matrix and log link function attached to the Gamma distribution. RESULTS: A final sample of 629 patients, 455 and 174 in the integrated group and HAART group respectively, were obtained from the full dataset. As covariates for PSM, gender, age, baseline CD4+ and CD4+/ CD8+ were assessed based on the results of the logistic regression analyses. Following PSM, 166 pairs from the full dataset were matched successfully, with 98 pairs in the baseline CD4+ > 200 subgroup, and 55 pairs in the baseline CD4+ ≤ 200 subgroup. In the full dataset, HAART group achieved higher CD4+ count (OR = 1.119, 95%CI [1.018, 1.230]) and CD4+/CD8+ ratio (OR = 1.168, 95%CI [1.045, 1.305]) than the integrated group, so did in the CD4+ > 200 subgroup. For the CD4+ ≤ 200 subgroup, the CD4+ (OR = 0.825, 95%CI [0.694, 0.980]) and CD4+/CD8+ (OR = 0.826, 95%CI [0.684, 0.997]) of the integrated group were higher than those of the HAART group. The safety outcomes showed that there were no significant differences in BUN, ALT and AST levels between the groups but Cr showed significantly higher levels in HAART groups of all three datasets. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to HAART alone, CHMs combined with HAART had better effects in improving the immune function of HIV/AIDS in patients with baseline CD4+ count ≤ 200. The results of the two subgroups are in opposite directions, and chance does not explain the apparent subgroup effect. A study with larger sample size and longer follow-up period is warranted in order to increase study credibility.