03242nas a2200373 4500000000100000008004100001260001600042653002400058653002700082653005700109653001700166653001600183653000800199653001000207653001500217653002200232653003200254100001100286700001200297700001600309700001100325700001100336700001300347700001600360700001300376700001200389700001000401245011800411856015300529300000800682490000700690520215700697022001402854 2024 d bElsevier BV10aInfectious Diseases10aMicrobiology (medical)10aPublic Health, Environmental and Occupational Health10aEpidemiology10aCoinfection10aHIV10aIndia10aPrevalence10aSystematic review10aVisceral leishmaniasis (VL)1 aKaur R1 aKumar R1 aChaudhary V1 aDevi V1 aDhir D1 aKumari S1 aYanadaiah P1 aPandey K1 aMurti K1 aPal B00aPrevalence of HIV infection among visceral leishmaniasis patients in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398423002919/pdfft?md5=f9893766e25d7b6d181a8944d985a0fc&pid=1-s2.0-S2213398423002919-main.pdf a1-60 v253 a

Background: Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) and HIV coinfection constitute a growing public health challenge, especially in VL-endemic regions. In 2020, India represented 18 % of the global VL burden and held the world's third-largest burden of HIV infection. This study aimed to systematically assess the prevalence of HIV infection among VL patients in India, providing insight into the epidemiological landscape of these concomitant diseases.

Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, an exhaustive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar was performed, including articles published until June 2022. The random-effects model was utilized for estimating overall prevalence, and subgroup analysis was performed based on the study region. R software (version 4.2.2) was used for analysis.

Results: This review included five studies, with publication years ranging from 2006 to 2021. The analysis involved 20,835 individuals diagnosed with VL, among whom 726 tested positive for HIV. The overall estimated prevalence of HIV infection among VL patients in India was 3.4 % (95 % CI: 2.0–5.8 %). However, there was substantial heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 98 %, p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis demonstrated prevalence rates in Bihar at 3.1 % (95 % CI: 1.7–5.7 %) and in New Delhi at 5.8 % (95 % CI: 2.1–12.1 %), with no statistically significant difference between these regions (p = 0.22).

Conclusion: The study found low yet substantial prevalence of HIV infection in VL patients. To combat this dual health challenge, proactive measures, including integrated interventions, surveillance, and collaboration between VL and HIV programs, are essential to improve case identification and control.

 a2213-3984