Mpox: The Reemergence of an Old Disease and Inequities.

Mpox, previously known as monkeypox, is caused by an Orthopoxvirus related to the variola virus that causes smallpox. Prior to 2022, mpox was considered a zoonotic disease endemic to central and west Africa. Since May 2022, more than 86,000 cases of mpox from 110 countries have been identified across the world, predominantly in men who have sex with men, most often acquired through close physical contact or during sexual activity. The classical clinical presentation of mpox is a prodrome including fever, lethargy, and lymphadenopathy followed by a characteristic vesiculopustular rash. The recent 2022 outbreak included novel presentations of mpox with a predominance of anogenital lesions, mucosal lesions, and other features such as anorectal pain, proctitis, oropharyngeal lesions, tonsillitis, and multiphasic skin lesions. We describe the demographics and clinical spectrum of classical and novel mpox, outlining the potential complications and management.

Ethnic disparities in hospitalisation and hospital-outcomes during the second wave of COVID-19 infection in east London.

It is unclear if changes in public behaviours, developments in COVID-19 treatments, improved patient care, and directed policy initiatives have altered outcomes for minority ethnic groups in the second pandemic wave. This was a prospective analysis of patients aged ≥ 16 years having an emergency admission with SARS-CoV-2 infection between 01/09/2020 and 17/02/2021 to acute NHS hospitals in east London. Multivariable survival analysis was used to assess associations between ethnicity and mortality accounting for predefined risk factors. Age-standardised rates of hospital admission relative to the local population were compared between ethnic groups. Of 5533 patients, the ethnic distribution was White (n = 1805, 32.6%), Asian/Asian British (n = 1983, 35.8%), Black/Black British (n = 634, 11.4%), Mixed/Other (n = 433, 7.8%), and unknown (n = 678, 12.2%). Excluding 678 patients with missing data, 4855 were included in multivariable analysis. Relative to the White population, Asian and Black populations experienced 4.1 times (3.77-4.39) and 2.1 times (1.88-2.33) higher rates of age-standardised hospital admission. After adjustment for various patient risk factors including age, sex, and socioeconomic deprivation, Asian patients were at significantly higher risk of death within 30 days (HR 1.47 [1.24-1.73]). No association with increased risk of death in hospitalised patients was observed for Black or Mixed/Other ethnicity. Asian and Black ethnic groups continue to experience poor outcomes following COVID-19. Despite higher-than-expected rates of hospital admission, Black and Asian patients also experienced similar or greater risk of death in hospital since the start of the pandemic, implying a higher overall risk of COVID-19 associated death in these communities.

The Barts Health NHS Trust COVID-19 cohort: characteristics, outcomes and risk scoring of patients in East London.

BACKGROUND: Barts Health National Health Service Trust (BHNHST) serves a diverse population of 2.5 million people in London, UK. We undertook a health services assessment of factors used to evaluate the risk of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.METHODS: Patients with confirmed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results admitted between 1 March and 1 August 2020 were included, alongwith clinician-diagnosed suspected cases. Prognostic factors from the 4C Mortality score and 4C Deterioration scores were extracted from electronic health records and logistic regression was used to quantify the strength of association with 28-day mortality and clinical deterioration using national death registry linkage.RESULTS: Of 2783 patients, 1621 had a confirmed diagnosis, of whom 61% were male and 54% were from Black and Minority Ethnic groups; 26% died within 28 days of admission. Mortality was strongly associated with older age. The 4C mortality score had good stratification of risk with a calibration slope of 1.14 (95% CI 1.01-1.27). It may have under-estimated mortality risk in those with a high respiratory rate or requiring oxygen.CONCLUSION: Patients in this diverse patient cohort had similar mortality associated with prognostic factors to the 4C score derivation sample, but survival might be poorer in those with respiratory failure.

Estimated glomerular filtration rate slopes on tenofovir alafenamide.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to analyse and compare estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slopes during exposure to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) in individuals who initiated TAF, regardless of prior regimen, before October 2016. METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted at 11 clinics in the UK and Ireland. Mixed effects models with random intercept and time terms fitted were used to generate and compare eGFR slopes while participants were exposed to TDF and TAF, with adjustment for age, eGFR at TDF/TAF initiation, gender, ethnicity, and time-updated CD4 cell count and HIV RNA measurements. RESULTS: Data were available for 357 subjects (median age 50 years; 80% male; 82% white/other ethnicity; 51% men who have sex with men; median nadir CD4 count 216 cells/µL). The median duration of exposure to TAF was 2.0 (interquartile range 1.6, 2.3) years. At TAF initiation, the median CD4 count was 557 cells/µL, the median eGFR was 80 mL/min/1.73 m2, and 86% had suppressed HIV infection. The mean adjusted eGFR slope during TDF and TAF exposure was -2.08 [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.24, -1.92] and 1.18 (95% CI 0.20, 1.52) mL/min/1.73 m2/year, respectively (P < 0.001). Individuals who experienced rapid eGFR decline (> 3 or 5 mL/min/1.73 m2/year) while receiving TDF experienced significant eGFR recovery while on TAF (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvement in eGFR slope was observed in patients who switched from TDF- to TAF-containing antiretroviral regimens. These data provide further support for the renal safety of TAF, and for switching those who experience progressive worsening of renal function from TDF to TAF.

Switching to coformulated rilpivirine (RPV), emtricitabine (FTC) and tenofovir alafenamide from either RPV, FTC and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or efavirenz, FTC and TDF: 96-week results from two randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: The single-tablet regimen rilpivirine, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (RPV/FTC/TAF) for treatment of HIV-1-infected adults was approved based on bioequivalence. We assessed the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of switching to RPV/FTC/TAF from either RPV/FTC/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or efavirenz (EFV)/FTC/TDF. METHODS: We conducted two distinct randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, noninferiority trials in participants taking RPV/FTC/TDF (Study 1216) and EFV/FTC/TDF (Study 1160). Each study randomized virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL) adults (1:1) to switch to RPV/FTC/TAF or continue their current regimen for 96 weeks. We evaluated efficacy as the proportion with HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL using the Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm and prespecified bone and renal endpoints at week 96. RESULTS: We randomized and treated 630 participants in Study 1216 (RPV/FTC/TAF, n = 316; RPV/FTC/TDF, n = 314) and 875 in Study 1160 (RPV/FTC/TAF, n = 438; EFV/FTC/TDF, n = 437). In both studies, the efficacy of switching to RPV/FTC/TAF was noninferior to that of continuing baseline therapy at week 96, with respective percentages of patients with HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL being 89.2% versus 88.5% in Study 1216 [difference 0.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.3 to +5.8%] and 85.2% versus 85.1% in Study 1160 (difference 0%; 95% CI -4.8 to +4.8%). No participant on RPV/FTC/TAF developed treatment-emergent resistance versus two on EFV/FTC/TDF and one on RPV/FTC/TDF. Compared with continuing baseline therapy, significant improvements in bone mineral density and renal tubular markers were observed in the RPV/FTC/TAF groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to RPV/FTC/TAF from RPV/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF was safe and effective and improved bone mineral density and renal biomarkers up to 96 weeks with no cases of treatment-emergent resistance.

A systematic review of risk of HIV transmission through biting or spitting: implications for policy.

OBJECTIVES: The perceived threat of HIV transmission through spitting and biting is evidenced by the increasing use of "spit hoods" by Police Forces in the UK. In addition, a draft parliamentary bill has called for increased penalties for assaults on emergency workers, citing the risk of communicable disease transmission as one justification. We aimed to review literature relating to the risk of HIV transmission through biting or spitting. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase and Northern Lights databases and conference websites using search terms relating to HIV, AIDS, bite, spit and saliva. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identified citations. We classified plausibility of HIV transmission as low, medium, high or confirmed based on pre-specified criteria. RESULTS: A total of 742 abstracts were reviewed, yielding 32 articles for full-text review and 13 case reports/series after inclusion and exclusion criteria had been applied. There were no reported cases of HIV transmission related to spitting and nine cases identified following a bite, in which the majority occurred between family (six of nine), in fights involving serious wounds (three of nine), or to untrained first-aiders placing fingers in the mouth of someone having a seizure (two of nine). Only four cases were classified as highly plausible or confirmed transmission. None related to emergency workers and none were in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: There is no risk of transmitting HIV through spitting, and the risk through biting is negligible. Post-exposure prophylaxis is not indicated after a bite in all but exceptional circumstances. Policies to protect emergency workers should be developed with this evidence in mind.

Shortened therapy of eight weeks with paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir and dasabuvir is highly effective in people with recent HCV genotype 1 infection.

Paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir and dasabuvir with or without ribavirin for 12 weeks are approved for treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. This study assessed the efficacy of shortened duration paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir and dasabuvir with or without ribavirin for 8 weeks among people with recent HCV infection. In this open-label single-arm trial conducted in Australia, England and New Zealand, adults with recent HCV (duration of infection <12 months) received paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir and dasabuvir (with weight-based ribavirin for genotypes 1a and 1, no subtype) for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was sustained virological response at 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Thirty people (median age 38 years, male 93%) commenced treatment (with ribavirin, 97%), of whom 77% (n = 23) were HIV-positive, 93% (n = 28) had genotype 1a infection and 53% (n = 16) had ever injected drugs. Median maximum ALT in the preceding 12 months was 433 IU/L (IQR 321, 1012). Acute clinical hepatitis with ALT > 10 x ULN was documented in 83% (n = 25); one participant (3%) had jaundice. At baseline, median estimated duration of infection was 30 weeks (range 11, 51), and median HCV RNA was 5.7 log10 IU/mL (range 2.7, 7.3). SVR12 was achieved in 97% (29/30; early discontinuation at week 2, n = 1; per protocol 100%, 29/29). No relapse or reinfection was observed. In conclusion, paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir and dasabuvir (with ribavirin) for eight weeks were highly effective among HIV-positive and HIV-negative individuals with recent HCV infection. These data support the use of this shortened duration direct-acting antiviral regimen in this population.

Implementing routine blood-borne virus testing for HCV, HBV and HIV at a London Emergency Department - uncovering the iceberg?

UK guidelines recommend routine HIV testing in high prevalence emergency departments (ED) and targeted testing for HBV and HCV. The 'Going Viral' campaign implemented opt-out blood-borne virus (BBV) testing in adults in a high prevalence ED, to assess seroprevalence, uptake, linkage to care (LTC) rates and staff time taken to achieve LTC. Diagnosis status (new/known/unknown), current engagement in care, and severity of disease was established. LTC was defined as patient informed plus ⩾1 clinic visit. A total of 6211/24 981 ED attendees were tested (uptake 25%); 257 (4.1%) were BBV positive (15 co-infected), 84 (33%) required LTC. 100/147 (68%) HCV positives were viraemic; 44 (30%) required LTC (13 new, 16 disengaged). 26/54 (48%) HBV required LTC (seven new, 11 disengaged). 16/71 (23%) HIV required LTC (10 new, five disengaged). 26/84 (31%) patients requiring LTC had advanced disease (CD4 1, Fibroscan F3/F4 or liver cancer), including five with AIDS-defining conditions and three hepatocellular carcinomas. There were five BBV-related deaths. BBV prevalence was high (4.1%); most were HCV (2.4%). HIV patients were more successfully and quickly LTC than HBV or HCV patients. ED testing was valuable as one-third of those requiring LTC (new, disengaged or unknown status patients) had advanced disease.

Long-term effectiveness of recommended boosted protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy in Europe.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term response to antiretroviral treatment (ART) based on atazanavir/ritonavir (ATZ/r)-, darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r)-, and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-containing regimens. METHODS: Data were analysed for 5678 EuroSIDA-enrolled patients starting a DRV/r-, ATZ/r- or LPV/r-containing regimen between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2013. Separate analyses were performed for the following subgroups of patients: (1) ART-naïve subjects (8%) at ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) initiation; (2) ART-experienced individuals (44%) initiating the new PI/r with a viral load (VL) ≤500 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL; and (3) ART-experienced patients (48%) initiating the new PI/r with a VL >500 copies/mL. Virological failure (VF) was defined as two consecutive VL measurements >200 copies/mL ≥24 weeks after PI/r initiation. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models were used to compare risks of failure by PI/r-based regimen. The main analysis was performed with intention-to-treat (ITT) ignoring treatment switches. RESULTS: The time to VF favoured DRV/r over ATZ/r, and both were superior to LPV/r (log-rank test; P < 0.02) in all analyses. Nevertheless, the risk of VF in ART-naïve patients was similar regardless of the PI/r initiated after controlling for potential confounders. The risk of VF in both treatment-experienced groups was lower for DRV/r than for ATZ/r, which, in turn, was lower than for LPV/r-based ART. CONCLUSIONS: Although confounding by indication and calendar year cannot be completely ruled out, in ART-experienced subjects the long-term effectiveness of DRV/r-containing regimens appears to be greater than that of ATZ/r and LPV/r.

Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-reducing strategies in HIV treatment: assessing the evidence.

Antiretroviral (ARV) therapy, comprising a backbone of two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus another ARV, is the recognized standard of care (SOC), which has helped extend life expectancy in people living with HIV. In a quest to reduce lifelong drug exposure and minimize or avoid the toxicity of NRTIs, "NRTI-reducing" regimens have been investigated. This descriptive review assessing the results of NRTI-reducing strategies from the largest randomized trials focuses on virological efficacy, resistance, regimen safety (in terms of bone mineral density, renal function, lipids and central nervous system function) and simplicity. The review considers efficacy across various NRTI-sparing strategies, for example an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) plus a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) or PI/r + lamivudine (3TC), in both naïve and switch regimes. Of 10 key studies in treatment-naïve adults assessing five NRTI-reducing strategies, only four studies demonstrated noninferiority vs. SOC [GARDEL, NEAT 001, AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5142 and PROGRESS]. In switch settings, 17 studies (10 randomized) were reviewed that used four strategies, including three studies assessing an INSTI plus a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor . Noninferiority of the NRTI-reducing arm was shown in six of 10 studies (ATLAS-M, SALT, DUAL, OLE, LATTE-2 and SWORD). In general, NRTI-reducing therapy did not always result in an improvement in short- or long-term adverse events; however, in many cases, these endpoints were not reported. Some of these studies reported higher virological failure rates with more frequent emergence of resistance mutations. None of these NRTI-reducing strategies has been compared against a single-pill regimen, including those containing tenofovir alafenamide. Only strategies demonstrating noninferior efficacy, a benefit in safety/tolerability, and a favourable cost-efficacy ratio, preferably in a single pill, will eventually match the current SOC of triple ARV therapy.

Incorporating HIV/hepatitis B virus/hepatitis C virus combined testing into routine blood tests in nine UK Emergency Departments: the "Going Viral" campaign.

OBJECTIVES: Routine HIV screening is recommended in those UK hospitals and primary care settings where the HIV prevalence is > 0.2%. For hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), however, testing is targeted at at-risk groups. We investigated the prevalence of these blood-borne viruses (BBVs) during a routine testing pilot in UK Emergency Departments (EDs). METHODS: During the "Going Viral" campaign (13-19 October 2014), nine UK EDs in areas of high HIV prevalence offered routine tests for HIV, HBV and HCV to adults having blood taken as part of routine care. Patients who tested positive were linked to care. RESULTS: A total of 7807 patients had blood taken during their ED visit; of these, 2118 (27%) were tested for BBVs (range 9-65%). Seventy-one BBV tests were positive (3.4%) with 32 (45.1%) new diagnoses. There were 39 HCV infections (15 newly diagnosed), 17 HIV infections (six newly diagnosed), and 15 HBV infections (11 newly diagnosed). Those aged 25-54 years had the highest prevalence: 2.46% for HCV, 1.36% for HIV and 1.09% for HBV. Assuming the cost per diagnosis is £7, the cost per new case detected would be £988 for HCV, £1351 for HBV and £2478 for HIV. CONCLUSIONS: In the first study in the UK to report prospectively on BBV prevalence in the ED, we identified a high number of new viral hepatitis diagnoses, especially hepatitis C, in addition to the HIV diagnoses. Testing for HIV alone would have missed 54 viral hepatitis diagnoses (26 new), supporting further evaluation of routine BBV testing in UK EDs.

TestMeEast: a campaign to increase HIV testing in hospitals and to reduce late diagnosis.

Late diagnosis occurs in almost half of those diagnosed in the UK (HIV Prevention England, 2013. Retrieved June 22, 2014, from HIV Prevention England: http://www.hivpreventionengland.org.uk/Campaigns-Current/National-HIV-Testing-Week ). Testing occurs mainly in sexual health and antenatal clinics despite recommendations to test more broadly [Ellis, S., & Curtis, H. (2012). HIV diagnoses and missed opportunities. Results of the British HIV association (BHIVA) National Audit 2010. Clinical Medicine, 12(5), 430-434]. We report the findings of an HIV-testing week campaign to offer testing to those who have blood tests as part of routine care within outpatient clinics and emergency departments of six London hospitals. The campaign target was to test 500 patients a day during the 2013 National HIV Testing Week (NHTW). Clinic staff and medical students were trained to offer routine HIV testing. Linkage to care was arranged for those who tested HIV-positive. During NHTW we tested 2402 of the planned 2500 test target. 2402/4317 (55.6% 95% CI 54.1-57.1%) of those who had routine blood tests were tested for HIV. There were eight HIV-positive tests; three were new diagnoses (all linked to care). The campaign hashtag #TestMeEast achieved a total Twitter "reach" of 238, 860 and the campaign had widespread news coverage. Our campaign showed that staff and students could be trained and mobilised to do thousands of routine HIV tests during a campaign.

HIV research trials versus standard clinics for antiretroviral-naïve patients: the outcomes differ but do the patients?

Exclusion criteria for HIV treatment-naïve drug trials can be stringent and selection bias exists, making it difficult to extrapolate results into the 'real world' clinical situation. We aim to compare the demographics, virological outcomes and psychosocial complexity in adult HIV-infected treatment-naïve patients from our cohort initiating combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in research trials versus standard clinics. In our unit from 2006 to 2011, 1202 standard clinic and 69 research trial patients initiated cART; every eighth standard clinics patient was included to create a standard clinics:research trials patient ratio of 2:1. Notes were retrospectively reviewed for patient demographics, attendance rates and virological outcomes. Data from 221 antiretroviral-naïve patients starting cART were analysed: 152 standard clinic patients and 69 from research trials. In the research trials group, there was an overrepresentation of men (p = 0.041), men who have sex with men (p < 0.001), patients of white ethnicity (p = 0.01), employed patients (p = 0.01) and patients using excessive alcohol (p = 0.02). There was equal representation of drug use, depression and referral to psychology, psychiatry and social work in both groups. The research trials group at baseline had significantly higher CD4 counts (p < 0.001), lower viral loads (p = 0.01) and more patients achieved undetectable viral loads at three (p < 0.001), six (p < 0.001) and 24 months (p = 0.033). There is a prevailing common preconception that participants in clinical trials are uncomplicated, unlike their 'real-life' counterparts. We demonstrated important similarities in psychosocial complexity as well as differences in demographics and virological outcomes in trial and non-trial patients. Clinicians need to be aware of these discrepancies to ensure the facilitation of a heterogeneous population participating in research trials.

High prevalence of hepatitis C (HCV) in the emergency department (ED) of a London hospital: should we be screening for HCV in ED attendees?

An unlinked anonymous study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in emergency department (ED) attendees at a London Hospital. Nine hundred and ninety-seven samples collected over a 12-day period were tested for HCV antibody (Ab) and reactive samples were further tested for HCV RNA. The HCV seroprevalence was 2·6% (26/997) with 1·2% (12/997) HCV RNA positive. A peak HCV RNA-positive prevalence of 4·8% (3/63) was found in males aged 35-44 years, this was compared to 0% (0/136) in males aged <35 years (P = 0·0614) and 1·4% (4/278) in males aged ⩾45 years (P = 0·2415). Assuming the cost for HCV Ab is £6 and HCV RNA is £40 per test, screening ED attendees aged 25-54 years would cost £360 per viraemic infection and identify 82% of those who were HCV RNA positive, yielding the most favourable cost/benefit ratio. HCV screening of ED attendees aged 25-54 years in this population could be an effective way of identifying patients and limit onward transmission.

Routine HIV testing within the emergency department of a major trauma centre: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: UK guidelines recommend routine HIV testing for all medical admissions where the local prevalence exceeds 2 per 1000. We aimed to review uptake of HIV testing in the emergency department (ED) of one of the country's major trauma centres in a 3-month pilot study (March-June 2013). METHODS: ED attendees already having blood tests were routinely tested for HIV (based on the recommendation being made to all to test when having blood taken). Uptake was determined using the surrogate marker of ED attendees who had full blood counts (FBCs) as the denominator. Newly diagnosed patients were linked to care and contacts tested. Staff completed an anonymous online survey to determine acceptability at the end of the pilot study. RESULTS: A total of 2828 patients were tested over 3 months. Nineteen HIV-positive individuals were identified. Eight were newly diagnosed, of whom two were thought to be seroconverting. The prevalence of new diagnoses was 8/2828 (0.28%); for comparison, the Public Health England (PHE) actual prevalence for Tower Hamlets is 6.25/1000 (0.625%). Uptake for HIV testing was 30%, a significant increase from 72 tests performed in the 2 months prior (P < 0.001). Ninety-five per cent of respondents to the staff survey agreed that routine HIV testing should be rolled out permanently in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an average uptake rate, there were 19 positive tests: eight in patients who were newly diagnosed, six in patients who had been lost to follow-up, and five in patients who were known to be positive and linked to care. The staff survey indicated recognition of the importance of HIV testing in the ED. These persuasive data achieved short-term Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) funding for routine ED testing.

Week 96 analysis of rilpivirine or efavirenz in HIV-1-infected patients with baseline viral load ≤ 100 000 copies/mL in the pooled ECHO and THRIVE phase 3, randomized, double-blind trials.

OBJECTIVES: These 96-week, ECHO/THRIVE pooled analyses evaluated data for antiretroviral treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected adults with viral load (VL) ≤ 100 000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL receiving rilpivirine or efavirenz. METHODS: ECHO and THRIVE were phase 3, randomized, double-blind trials. Patients received rilpivirine 25 mg once daily (qd) or efavirenz 600 mg qd, with a fixed (ECHO) or investigator-chosen (THRIVE) nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (N[t]RTI) background regimen. Response rate (the percentage of patients with VL < 50 copies/mL, using an intent-to-treat-population, time-to-loss-of-virological-response algorithm), virological failure (VF), resistance development, safety and tolerability were evaluated. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the rilpivirine (n = 368) and efavirenz (n = 329) groups. At week 96, response rates [84% for rilpivirine vs. 80% for efavirenz; difference 4.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.7% to 9.7%] and incidences of VF for the resistance analysis (VFres) (8% for rilpivirine vs. 6% for efavirenz; P = 0.46) were similar in the two groups. Among patients with VFres , a comparable proportion in each group developed nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance-associated mutations (RAMs). Among those with VFres , more patients in the rilpivirine group than in the efavirenz group developed N[t]RTI RAMs, mostly M184I/V. The mean (95% CI) CD4 cell count increased from baseline to week 96 by 224 (208-240) cells/µL in the rilpivirine group and by 206 (188-225) cells/µL in the efavirenz group. Treatment-related grade 2-4 overall adverse events, any rash and dizziness were less frequent for rilpivirine than for efavirenz (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Rilpivirine demonstrated antiviral efficacy similar to that of efavirenz in antiretroviral treatment-naïve adults with baseline VL ≤ 100 000 copies/mL over 96 weeks. Frequencies of VFres and emergent NNRTI RAMs in each group were similar. More patients with VFres in the rilpivirine group than in the efavirenz group developed N[t]RTI RAMs (mostly M184I/V). Rilpivirine had a more favourable safety/tolerability profile than efavirenz.

Final 192-week efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir compared with lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected treatment-naïve patients in the ARTEMIS trial.

OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the final analysis of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) vs. lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected adults. METHODS: ARTEMIS (AntiRetroviral Therapy with TMC114 ExaMined In naïve Subjects; NCT00258557) was a randomized, open-label, phase-III, 192-week trial. Patients were stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and CD4 count, and randomized to once-daily DRV/r 800/100 mg or LPV/r 800/200 mg total daily dose (either once or twice daily) plus tenofovir/emtricitabine. RESULTS: Of 689 randomized patients receiving treatment (DRV/r: 343; LPV/r: 346), 85 and 114 patients in the DRV/r and LPV/r arms, respectively, had discontinued by week 192. Noninferiority was shown in the primary endpoint of virological response (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL) [DRV/r: 68.8%; LPV/r: 57.2%; P < 0.001; intent to treat (ITT)/time to loss of virological response; estimated difference in response 11.6% (95% confidence interval 4.4-18.8%)]. Statistical superiority in virological response of DRV/r over LPV/r was demonstrated for the primary endpoint (P = 0.002) and for the ITT non-virological-failure-censored analysis (87.4% vs. 80.8%, respectively; P = 0.040). No protease inhibitor (PI) primary mutations developed and only low levels of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) resistance developed in virological failures in both groups. Significantly fewer discontinuations because of adverse events were observed with DRV/r (4.7%) than with LPV/r (12.7%; P = 0.005). Grade 2-4 treatment-related diarrhoea was significantly less frequent with DRV/r than with LPV/r (5.0% vs. 11.3%, respectively; P = 0.003). DRV/r was associated with smaller median increases in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels than LPV/r. Changes in low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were similar between groups. Similar increases in aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase for DRV/r and LPV/r were observed. CONCLUSION: Over 192 weeks, once-daily DRV/r was noninferior and statistically superior in virological response to LPV/r, with a more favourable gastrointestinal profile, demonstrating its suitability for long-term use in treatment-naïve patients.

Non-uptake of highly active antiretroviral therapy among patients with a CD4 count < 350 cells/µL in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: Current British HIV Association (BHIVA) guidelines recommend that all patients with a CD4 count <350 cells/µL are offered highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). We identified risk factors for delayed initiation of HAART following a CD4 count <350 cells/µL. METHODS: All adults under follow-up in 2008 who had a first confirmed CD4 count <350 cells/µL from 2004 to 2008, who had not initiated treatment and who had >6 months of follow-up were included in the study. Characteristics at the time of the low CD4 cell count and over follow-up were compared to identify factors associated with delayed HAART uptake. Analyses used proportional hazards regression with fixed (sex/risk group, age, ethnicity, AIDS, baseline CD4 cell count and calendar year) and time-updated (frequency of CD4 cell count measurement, proportion of CD4 counts <350 cells/µL, latest CD4 cell count, CD4 percentage and viral load) covariates. RESULTS: Of 4871 patients with a confirmed low CD4 cell count, 436 (8.9%) remained untreated. In multivariable analyses, those starting HAART were older [adjusted relative hazard (aRH)/10 years 1.15], were more likely to be female heterosexual (aRH 1.13), were more likely to have had AIDS (aRH 1.14), had a greater number of CD4 measurements < 350 cells/µL (aRH/additional count 1.18), had a lower CD4 count over follow-up (aRH/50 cells/µL higher 0.57), had a lower CD4 percentage (aRH/5% higher 0.90) and had a higher viral load (aRH/log(10) HIV-1 RNA copies/ml higher 1.06). Injecting drug users (aRH 0.53), women infected with HIV via nonsexual or injecting drug use routes (aRH 0.75) and those of unknown ethnicity (aRH 0.69) were less likely to commence HAART. CONCLUSION: A substantial minority of patients with a CD4 count < 350 cells/µL remain untreated despite its indication.