Context New trial data and drug regimens that have become available in the last 2 years warrant an update to guidelines for antiretroviral therapy (ART) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected adults in resource-rich settings. Objective To provide current recommendations for the treatment of adult HIV infection with ART and use of laboratory-monitoring tools. Guidelines include when to start therapy and with what drugs, monitoring for response and toxic effects, special considerations in therapy, and managing antiretroviral failure. Data Sources, Study Selection, and Data Extraction Data that had been published or presented in abstract form at scientific conferences in the past 2 years were systematically searched and reviewed by an International Antiviral Society–USA panel. The panel reviewed available evidence and formed recommendations by full panel consensus. Data Synthesis Treatment is recommended for all adults with HIV infection; the strength of the recommendation and the quality of the evidence increase with decreasing CD4 cell count and the presence of certain concurrent conditions. Recommended initial regimens include 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine) plus a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz), a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (atazanavir or darunavir), or an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (raltegravir). Alternatives in each class are recommended for patients with or at risk of certain concurrent conditions. CD4 cell count and HIV-1 RNA level should be monitored, as should engagement in care, ART adherence, HIV drug resistance, and quality-of-care indicators. Reasons for regimen switching include virologic, immunologic, or clinical failure and drug toxicity or intolerance. Confirmed treatment failure should be addressed promptly and multiple factors considered. Conclusion New recommendations for HIV patient care include offering ART to all patients regardless of CD4 cell count, changes in therapeutic options, and modifications in the timing and choice of ART in the setting of opportunistic illnesses such as cryptococcal disease and tuberculosis.

/pdf/antiretroviral-treatment-of-adult-hiv-infection-2012-4sv2pp4tfj.pdf

Antiretroviral Treatment of Adult HIV Infection: 2012 Recommendations of the International Antiviral Society–USA Panel

The 2008 BHIVA Guidelines have been updated to incorporate all the new relevant information (including presentations at the 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2008) since the last iteration. The guidelines follow the methodology outlined below and all the peer-reviewed publications and important, potentially treatment-changing abstracts from the last 2 years have been reviewed.


The translation of data into clinical practice is often difficult even with the best possible evidence (i.e. two randomized controlled trials) because of trial design, inclusion criteria and precise surrogate marker endpoints (see Appendix). The recommendations based upon expert opinion have the least good evidence but perhaps provide an important reason for writing the guidelines to produce a consensual opinion about current practice. It must, however, be appreciated that such opinion is often wrong and should not stifle research to challenge it.


Similarly, although the Writing Group seeks to provide guidelines to optimize treatment, such care needs to be individualized and we have not constructed a document that we would wish to see used as a ‘standard’ for litigation.

/pdf/british-hiv-association-guidelines-for-the-treatment-of-hiv-10vdb5k2uo.pdf

British HIV Association guidelines for the treatment of HIV-1-infected adults with antiretroviral therapy 2008

Context The availability of new antiretroviral drugs and formulations, including drugs in new classes, and recent data on treatment choices for antiretroviral-naive and -experienced patients warrant an update of the International AIDS Society–USA guidelines for the use of antiretroviral therapy in adult human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Objectives To summarize new data in the field and to provide current recommendations for the antiretroviral management and laboratory monitoring of HIV infection. This report provides guidelines in key areas of antiretroviral management: when toinitiatetherapy,choiceofinitialregimens,patientmonitoring,whentochangetherapy, and how best to approach treatment options, including optimal use of recently approved drugs (maraviroc, raltegravir, and etravirine) in treatment-experienced patients.

/pdf/antiretroviral-treatment-of-adult-hiv-infection-2b9ceai825.pdf

Antiretroviral Treatment of Adult HIV Infection

Researchers now know how to properly account for most of the multiple hypothesis testing involved in mining the genome for associations, and most reported associations reflect real biologic causation. But, David Goldstein asks, do they matter?

Common Genetic Variation and Human Traits

Use of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and risk of myocardial infarction in HIV-infected patients enrolled in the D:A:D study: a multi-cohort collaboration

Hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir is strongly associated with the presence of the HLA-B*5701 allele. This study was designed to establish the effectiveness of prospective HLA-B*5701 screening to prevent the hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir. Methods This double-blind, prospective, randomized study involved 1956 patients from 19 countries, who were infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and who had not previously received abacavir. We randomly assigned patients to undergo prospective HLA-B*5701 screening, with exclusion of HLA-B*5701–positive patients from abacavir treatment (prospective-screening group), or to undergo a standard-of-care approach of abacavir use without prospective HLA-B*5701 screening (control group). All patients who started abacavir were observed for 6 weeks. To immunologically confirm, and enhance the specificity of, the clinical diagnosis of hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir, we performed epicutaneous patch testing with the use of abacavir. Results The prevalence of HLA-B*5701 was 5.6% (109 of 1956 patients). Of the patients receiving abacavir, 72% were men, 84% were white, and 18% had not previously received antiretroviral therapy. Screening eliminated immunologically confirmed hypersensitivity reaction (0% in the prospective-screening group vs. 2.7% in the control group, P<0.001), with a negative predictive value of 100% and a positive predictive value of 47.9%. Hypersensitivity reaction was clinically diagnosed in 93 patients, with a significantly lower incidence in the prospective-screening group (3.4%) than in the control group (7.8%) (P<0.001). Conclusions HLA-B*5701 screening reduced the risk of hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir. In predominantly white populations, similar to the one in this study, 94% of patients do not carry the HLA-B*5701 allele and are at low risk for hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir. Our results show that a pharmacogenetic test can be used to prevent a specific toxic effect of a drug. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00340080.)

/pdf/hla-b-5701-screening-for-hypersensitivity-to-abacavir-2d25s1gbnk.pdf

Janez Tomazic

Papers

HLA-B*5701 Screening for Hypersensitivity to Abacavir