Search results

Purpose of the studyTo describe long‐term incidence trends and median age at diagnosis for the three AIDS‐defining cancers (ADC) in HIV‐1‐ infected (HIV1+) patients compared to general population. To study the risk of ADC in HIV1+patients with good immune status (CD4≥500/mm3 for at least 2 years).MethodsIncident ADC (Kaposi's sarcoma [KS], non‐Hodgkin's lymphomas [NHL] and cervix uteri cancer [CUC]) were retrieved in HIV1+adults followed in the French hospital database on HIV (FHDH) cohort between 1992 and 2009. Cancer incidence rates (IR) in general population were calculated using data from the French cancer registries (Francim network). IR among the HIV1+and the general population were standardized using the 5 years age and sex groups structure of the HIV1+population (1997–2009) and standardized incidence ratios (SIR) were estimated in HIV1+ patients vs. general population in 4 calendar periods (1992–1996, 1997–2000, 2001–2004, and 2005–2009). Median age at diagnosis was estimated after adjusting for the difference in age structure between HIV1+and general population.Summary of results5,935 incident ADC were diagnosed among 100,536 HIV1+ patients followed between 1992 and 2009. All ADC IRs were significantly reduced between pre‐ and post‐cART eras and continue to decline in the cART period (p<10−4). SIR are presented in the table.Median age at diagnosis was significantly younger among HIV1+ patients than the general population for KS (40.4 vs. 42.5; p<10−4), NHL (41.4 vs. 52.5; p<10−4) and CUC (39.3 vs. 42.5; p<10−4). For HIV1+ patients under treatment who maintained controlled viral load (<500 copies/µL) and CD4 ≥500/mm3 for at least 2 years, the risk for KS, NHL and CUC were respectively SIR=71.6 (28.7–147.5), 2.4 (0.9–4.8) and 1.6 (0.3–4.7) vs. general population.ConclusionsThe incidence rates of KS, NHL and CUC continued to decline through 2009 but the risk remained elevated as compared to general population in the most recent cART period. Despite the great reduction when compared to general population, the risk is still very high for KS in HIV1+patients who maintained CD4 ≥500/mm3 for at least 2 years. The risk was not significant for CUC and NHL.















Pre‐cART (1992–1996)
Early‐cART (1997–2000)
Intermediate‐cART (2001–2004)
Lte‐cART (2005–2009)



O/E
SIR (95% CI)
O/E
SIR (95% CI)
O/E
SIR (95% CI)
O/E
SIR (95% CI)




Kaposi's sarcoma
2177/0.9
2299.7 (2204.1–2398.4)
462/0.4
1080.1 (983.87–1183.3)
403/0.4
1130.1 (1022.5–1246.1)
354/0.4
817.7 (734.8–907.52)


Non– Hodgkins's lymphoma
1111/4.0
278.7 (262.5–295.6)
515/6.2
83.8 (76.7–91.4)
370/8.8
42.1 (37.9–46.6)
372/14.8
25.1 (22.6–27.8)


Cervix uteri
38/3.2
12.0 (8.5–16.5)
48/5.3
9.1 (6.7–12.1)
37/7.0
5.3 (3.7–7.3)
48/10.4
4.6 (3.4–6.1)





O/E: Observed cases / Expected cases.

Decades of techno-economic energy policymaking and research have meant evidence from the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)—including critical reflections on what changing a society's relation to energy (efficiency) even means—have been underutilised. In particular, (i) the SSH have too often been sidelined and/or narrowly pigeonholed by policymakers, funders, and other decision-makers when driving research agendas, and (ii) the setting of SSH-focused research agendas has not historically embedded inclusive and deliberative processes. The aim of this paper is to address these gaps through the production of a research agenda outlining future SSH research priorities for energy efficiency. A Horizon Scanning exercise was run, which sought to identify 100 priority SSH questions for energy efficiency research. This exercise included 152 researchers with prior SSH expertise on energy efficiency, who together spanned 62 (sub-)disciplines of SSH, 23 countries, and a full range of career stages. The resultant questions were inductively clustered into seven themes as follows: (1) Citizenship, engagement and knowledge exchange in relation to energy efficiency; (2) Energy efficiency in relation to equity, justice, poverty and vulnerability; (3) Energy efficiency in relation to everyday life and practices of energy consumption and production; (4) Framing, defining and measuring energy efficiency; (5) Governance, policy and political issues around energy efficiency; (6) Roles of economic systems, supply chains and financial mechanisms in improving energy efficiency; and (7) The interactions, unintended consequences and rebound effects of energy efficiency interventions. Given the consistent centrality of energy efficiency in policy programmes, this paper highlights that well-developed SSH approaches are ready to be mobilised to contribute to the development, and/or to understand the implications, of energy efficiency measures and governance solutions. Implicitly, it also emphasises the heterogeneity of SSH policy evidence ...