Use of efavirenz or atazanavir/ritonavir is associated with better clinical outcomes of HAART compared to other protease inhibitors: routine evidence from the Italian MASTER Cohort.

Randomized trials and observational cohorts reported higher rates of virological suppression after highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) including efavirenz (EFV), compared with boosted protease inhibitors (PIs). Correlations with immunological and clinical outcomes are unclear. Patients of the Italian MASTER cohort who started HAART from 2000 to 2010 were selected. Outstanding outcome (composite outcome for success (COS)) was introduced. We evaluated predictors of COS (no AIDS plus CD4+ count >500/mm(3)plus HIV-RNA <500 copies/mL) and of eight single outcomes either at month 6 or at year 3. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted. There were 6259 patients selected. Patients on EFV (43%) were younger, had greater CD4+ count, presented with AIDS less frequently, and more were Italians. At year 3, 90% of patients had HIV RNA <500 copies/mL, but only 41.4% were prescribed EFV, vs. 34.1% prescribed boosted PIs achieved COS (p <0.0001). At multivariable analysis, patients on lopinavir/ritonavir had an odds ratio of 0.70 for COS at year 3 (p <0.0001). Foreign origin and positive hepatitis C virus-Ab were independently associated with worse outcome (OR 0.54, p <0.0001 and OR 0.70, p 0.01, respectively). Patients on boosted PIs developed AIDS more frequently either at month 6 (13.8% vs. 7.6%, p <0.0001) or at year 3 (17.1% vs. 13.8%, p <0.0001). At year 3, deaths of patients starting EFV were 3%, vs. 5% on boosted PIs (p 0.008). In this study, naïve patients on EFV performed better than those on boosted PIs after adjustment for imbalances at baseline. Even when virological control is achieved, COS is relatively rare. Hepatitis C virus-positive patients and those of foreign origin are at risk of not obtaining COS.

A survey of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus control strategies in Italy.

PURPOSE: Data regarding the implementation of state-of-the-art methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) control procedures in Italy are lacking. There is a need to evaluate compliance with MRSA recommendations (CR) in Italian hospitals. METHODS: A 67-question closed-answer survey was sent to all Italian hospitals, in order to analyze and evaluate program consistency with CR [hand hygiene (HH), contact precautions, screening of high-risk patients, decolonization, feedback on surveillance data, and antimicrobial guidelines and education programs]. RESULTS: 205 hospitals, which account for 42 % of national admissions, returned questionnaires. 131 hospitals (64 %) did not have written MRSA control guidelines. Hospitals reported the following levels of compliance with CR: (1) HH: 67 hospitals (33 %); (2) contact precautions: 33 (16 %); (3) MRSA screening: 66 (32 %); (4) MRSA decolonization: 42 (20 %); (5) surveillance data feedback: 87 (43 %); and (6) antimicrobial guidelines and education programs: 41 (20 %). One hospital (0.5 % of responses) had implemented all recommendations and 28 hospitals (14 %) had implemented four or five recommendations. 31 % of hospitals surveyed had implemented none. Multivariate analysis showed that the only factor identified as being associated with the implementation of MRSA control recommendations was the number of meetings/year of the infection control team (ICT) (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Written MRSA control guidelines are available in only one-third of Italian facilities. An organized system, with ≥4 interventions, has been implemented in just 1 out of 7 hospitals. HH programs and ICT activity are related to better MRSA control. In Italy, there is significant opportunity for improvement in MRSA control.