Asian Hematology Research Journal

Introduction: Haematologic and haemostatic abnormalities are common complications of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. These abnormalities intensify in the course of the disease. In both antiretroviral-treated and naïve individuals, varied types of haematologic and haemostatic abnormalities are common. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the leading infectious cause of adult death in the world. As HIV disease progresses without treatment, the prevalence and severity of its adverse effects also increase. Antiretroviral treatment (ART) decreases the mortality of HIV positive subjects but increases coagulation disorders.

Aim of the Study: This study is aimed at assessing the Haematologic and Haemostatic Profiles of Human Immunodeficiency Virus- Positive Subjects on Two Anti-Retroviral Regimens in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

Materials and Methods: A total of one hundred and fifty (150) subjects aged (20-79) were recruited for the study from the Rivers State University Teaching Hospital (RSUTH) and University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital (UPTH) out of the which, fifty (50) were those on Abacavir Lamivudine Dolutegravir (Abc/3Tc Dtg) (First-line regimen), fifty (50) on Tenoforvir Lamivudine Dolutegravir(TLD) (Second-line regimen), while the remaining fifty (50) were the Naïve subjects used as control. The 5-part Sysmex XP-300 Automated Haematology Analyser was used to analyse the haematologic parameters. The determination of the D-dimer levels was done using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique. The generated data was expressed as Mean ± Standard deviation, and analysed using Microsoft Office Excel 2007 and Graph Prism Pad version 6.2. Comparisons of mean and standard deviation values were made for the various parameters for HIV-positive patients on First-line antiretroviral therapy, Second-line therapy and Naïve subjects using the Student’s independent t-test. Comparisons between more than two groups were made using the analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results were considered statistically significant at a 95% confidence interval (p<0.05).

Results: From this study, the WBC value for naïve subjects (5.3 ± 1.0 × 10 9/l) and patients on the First-line drug (5.3 ± 1.5 × 10 9/l) was significantly decreased when compared with (6.0 ± 1.7 × 10 9/l) in subjects on the Second- line (p₌ 0.0256). The lymphocyte value for naïve subjects (2.1 ± 0.68 × 10 9/l) was found to be significantly decreased when compared with 2.2 ± 0.93 × 10 9/l and 2.7 ± 1.3 × 10 9/l in subjects on the First-line and Second-line, respectively (p= 0.00068). The haemoglobin (HB) values for naïve subjects (10 ± 2.2 g/dl) were found to be significantly decreased when compared with 13 ± 1.5 g/dl in subjects on the First-line drugs and for subjects on the second-line drugs (p= 0.0001).  The Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) value for naïve subjects (1.7 ± 1.2) was found to be significantly increased when compared with 1.2 ± 0.68 and 1.1 ± 0.99 for First and Second line, respectively (p= 0.0070). Prothrombin time for naïve subjects (12 ± 2.8 sec) and subjects on the second-line drug (12 ± 2.4 sec) was found to be significantly decreased when compared with 14 ± 3.3 sec in subjects on the First-line drug (p=0.004). The APTT for naïve subjects (28 ± 5.3sec) was significantly decreased when compared with the First-line drug (33 ± 13 sec) and second-line drug (30 ± 7.3 sec) (p= 0.0091). The D-dimer levels for naïve subjects (537 ± 84 mg/dl) were significantly increased when compared to 160± 30 mg/dl for first-line and 308± 98 mg/dl for Second-line drugs (p < 0.0001)

Conclusion: There was a significant decrease in most parameters of the Naïve subjects, due to their immunocompromised state. And also significant differences were noted in the haemostatic parameters between the first-line and second-line when compared to the Naive subject. Inflammatory markers, such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and monocyte percentages, demonstrated the influence of ART in reducing systemic inflammation, with first-line treatment leading to improved immune balance. The persistence of elevated inflammatory markers in some second-line patients, however, emphasises the need for continuous monitoring and tailored treatment strategies.