Suchergebnisse

IntroductionSexually transmitted diseases (STDs) data collected in HIV+ patients could be used as indicator of risky sexual behaviour possibly linked to HIV transmission. We described the STDs incidence over time and identified higher incidence factors.MethodologyAll patients in the ICONA Foundation Study enrolled after 1998 were included. STDs considered: any‐stage syphilis, human papilloma virus (HPV) diseases, gonococcal and non‐gonococcal urethritis, herpes simplex virus (HSV) genital ulcers, vaginitis and acute hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis A virus (HAV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections (only for non‐IVDU (intravenous drug user) patients). STDs incidence rate (IR): number of STDs divided by person years of follow‐up (PYFU). Calendar periods: 1998–2002, 2003–2007 and 2008–2012. Predictors of STDs occurrence were identified using Poisson regression and sandwich estimates for the standard errors were used for multiple STD events.ResultsData of 9,168 patients were analyzed (median age 37.3 (SD=9.3), 74% male, 30% MSM). Over 46,736 PYFU, 996 episodes of STDs were observed (crude IR 17.3/1,000 PYFU). Median (IQR) CD4/mmc and HIV‐RNA/mL at STD: 433 (251–600) and 10,900 (200–63,000). Highest crude IRs were observed for any‐stage syphilis (3.95, 95% CI 3.59–4.35), HPV diseases (1.96, 1.71–2.24) and acute hepatitis (1.72, 1.49–1.99). At multivariable analysis (variables of adjustment shown in Figure 1), age (IRR 0.82 per 10 years younger, 95% CI 0.77–0.89), MSM contacts (IRR 3.03, 95% CI 2.52–3.64 vs heterosexual) and calendar period (IRR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42–1.96, comparing 2008–2012 with 1998–2002) significantly increased the risk of acquiring STDs. Moreover, having a HIV‐RNA >50 c/mL (IRR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19–1.74 vs HIV‐RNA <50 c/mL) and current CD4+ cell count <100/mmc (IRR 4.66, 95% CI 3.69–5.89, p<0.001 vs CD4+ cell count >500) showed an increased risk of STDs. Being on ARV treatment significantly reduced the risk of developing an STD (IRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.32–0.43) compared to ART‐naïve people, even in the situation of temporary interruption of treatment (IRR 0.51, 95% CI 0.39–0.43) (see Figure 1).ConclusionsThe overall incidence of STDs has been increasing in the recent years. Interventions to prevent STDs and potential further spread of HIV infection should target the recently HIV diagnosed, the young population and MSM. Being on ARV treatment (potentially an indicator of whether a person is regularly seen for care) seems to reduce the risk of acquiring STDs independently of its viro‐immunological effect.

IntroductionIn a recent clinical trial (ACTG 5257), no difference in viral failure (VF) of a first‐line cART containing atazanavir/r (ATV/r) or darunavir/r (DRV/r) was found [1]. For the endpoint of discontinuation due to intolerance, the regimen with DRV/r was superior to that of ATV/r (49% of the stops of ATV/r were attributed to jaundice or hyperbilirubinemia). These and other intolerances to ATV/r remain a concern for clinicians.MethodsParticipants in the ICONA Foundation Study who started cART with 2NRTI+ ATV/r or DRV/r while ART‐naïve were included. Several endpoints were evaluated: confirmed VF>200 copies/mL after six months of therapy, discontinuation of DRV/r or ATV/r for any reasons or because of intolerance/toxicity (as reported by the treating physician) and the combined endpoint of VF or stop. Survival analysis with Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression model stratified by clinical site was used. Patients' follow‐up accrued from cART initiation to the date of the event or to the date of last available visit/viral load.Results894 patients starting 2NRTI+ATV/r and 686 2NRTI+DRV/r when ART‐naïve on average in 2011 (IQR: 2010–2012) were studied. Most common NRTIs used were FTC/TDF (84%) and ABC/3TC (12%). Median age was 40 years, 22% females, 44% heterosexuals. Patients starting ATV/r were more likely to be hepatitis B/C infected (2% and 14% vs 1% and 9%, p=0.001), they started one year earlier (2011 vs 2012, p=0.001), were more likely to be enrolled in sites located in the north of Italy (63% vs 54%, p=0.04), started cART less promptly after HIV diagnosis (5 vs 2 months, p=0.02) and less likely to have started TDF/FTC (83% vs 85%, p=0.02). By two years of cART, 9.8% (95% CI 7.6–12.0) of those starting ATV/r experienced discontinuation due to intolerance/toxicity vs 6.5% in DRV/r group (95% CI 4.2–8.8, p=0.04). After controlling for several potential confounders (age, gender, nation of birth, mode of HIV transmission, hepatitis co‐infection status, AIDS diagnosis, nucleoside pair started, baseline CD4 count and viral load and year of starting cART) the relative hazard (RH) for ATV/r vs DRV/r was 2.01 (95% CI 1.23, 3.28, p=0.005). There were no statistical differences detected for any of the other outcomes.ConclusionsAlthough unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out, our results seem to be consistent with those of the ACTG 5257. When all cause discontinuations were considered, or the composite endpoint of treatment failure, there was no difference between ATV/r‐ and DRV/r‐based regimens.

IntroductionWe aimed at evaluating the efficacy and durability of a lopinavir/ritonavir‐based dual regimen (LPV/r‐DR) in virologically controlled HIV‐infected individuals in current clinical practice.MethodsPatients who have initiated for the first time a LPV/r‐DR with HIV‐RNA<50 copies/mL were included in this observational study. The main endpoints were: time to virological rebound [VR=time of first of two consecutive viral loads (VL)>50 copies/mL] and time to experience either a single VL>200 copies/mL or discontinuation/intensification (= treatment failure, TF). Individuals' follow‐up accrued from the date of starting the LPV/r‐DR to event or last available VL. Kaplan‐Meier curves and Cox regression analysis were used. Covariates included in the multivariable analysis were gender, age, route of transmission, hepatitis co‐infection, calendar year of starting the DR, nadir CD4+ count, VL at initiation of first cART, previous failures to protease inhibitors (PIs), time with undetectable VL before starting the DR and the type of DR [nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NRTI), non‐NRTI (NNRTI), raltegravir or maraviroc, with NRTI as reference group]. Results are presented as median (Q1, Q3) or frequency (%) as appropriate.Results108 individuals followed for 18 (7, 30) months were included; baseline (BL) characteristics are detailed in Table 1.LPV/r was associated with a NRTI in 51, with a NNRTI in 10, with raltegravir in 29, and with maraviroc in 18 individuals. By 36 months from switching to the LPV/r‐DR, the proportion of individuals with VR and TF was 10% (95% CI 3–17%) and 36% (95% CI 22–50%), respectively. We did not find any factor independently associated with the risk of VR. Older age (ARH=0.49 (95% CI 0.30–0.78) per 10 years older; p=0.003) was found to be protective from TF. Mean (SE) CD4+ cells/µL increase from BL to month 36 resulted significant: 195 (40.1) cells/µL (p=0.0028). We did not observe significant changes in AST, ALT, eGFR (MDRD formula), triglycerides and both total and HDL‐cholesterol.ConclusionsA LPV/r‐DR can be considered a valuable option in patients with HIV‐RNA<50 copies/mL and ongoing toxicity from the third drug of the regimen, although up to 17% of patients showed viral rebound by 3 years. Older patients are at lower risk of failure with this strategy, but larger sample size is needed to identify who might benefit from this strategy instead of others.