Virologic suppression in patients with a documented M184V/I mutation based on the number of active agents in the antiretroviral regimen.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal antiretroviral therapy for patients with the M184V/I mutation is not known. The primary objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of various antiretroviral therapies in patients with HIV and the M184V/I mutation based on the number of active antiretroviral agents. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 100 treatment-experienced patients harboring the M184V/I mutation seen at an urban HIV clinic. Efficacy was classified as percentage of patients with viral suppression defined as HIV RNA viral load <200 copies/mL at last measurement on current antiretroviral therapy, stratified by the number of active antiretroviral agents. RESULTS: The primary outcome of viral suppression occurred in 70.6% (12/17) of patients on <2 active agents, 77.2% (44/57) on 2-2.5 active agents, and 69.2% (18/26) on 3 active agents. No significant difference was found between viral suppression and patients on <2 and 2-2.5 antiretroviral agents (odds ratio = 0.71, 95% confidence interval = (0.21, 2.39), p = 0.8) or between patients on 3 and 2-2.5 active agents (odds ratio = 0.66, 95% confidence interval = (0.23, 1.88), p = 0.7). The most commonly prescribed regimen consisted of a boosted protease inhibitor with an integrase strand transfer inhibitor and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, one of which being lamivudine or emtricitabine. CONCLUSION: Similar rates of viral suppression were observed in patients regardless of the number of active antiretroviral agents prescribed. Regimens containing less than 3 active agents may maintain virologic suppression in patients with the M184V/I mutation. Further studies are needed to determine optimal antiretroviral therapy for patients with the M184V/I mutation.

Pharmacologic Management of Gout in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease and Heart Failure.

Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis and is often comorbid with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Hyperuricemia and gout are also independent risk factors for cardiovascular events, worsening heart failure (HF), and death. The recommended treatment modalities for gout have important implications for patients with CVD because of varying degrees of cardiovascular and HF benefit and risk. Therefore, it is critical to both manage hyperuricemia with urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and treat acute gout flares while minimizing the risk of adverse cardiovascular events. In this review, the evidence for the safety of pharmacologic treatment of acute and chronic gout in patients with CVD and/or HF is reviewed. In patients with CVD or HF who present with an acute gout flare, colchicine is considered safe and potentially reduces the risk of myocardial infarction. If patients cannot tolerate colchicine, short durations of low-dose glucocorticoids are efficacious and may be safe. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be avoided in patients with CVD or HF. The use of canakinumab and anakinra for acute gout flares is limited by the high cost, risk of serious infection, and relatively modest clinical benefit. For long-term ULT, allopurinol, and alternatively probenecid, should be considered first-line treatments in patients with CVD or HF given their safety and potential for reducing cardiovascular outcomes. An increased risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization limit the use of febuxostat and pegloticase as ULT in this population. Ultimately, the selection of agents used for acute gout management and long-term ULT should be individualized according to patient and agent cardiovascular risk factors.

An aspirin a day? Clinical utility of aspirin therapy for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Since the description of its therapeutic potential, aspirin has been a cornerstone of therapy following vascular events. However, aspirin in the primary prevention setting is controversial and major guideline groups provide inconsistent recommendations. Thus, there is variability in practice as providers are faced with a balance of therapeutic benefit and drug-induced harm. Areas covered: This article provides a critical appraisal of both past and present data for aspirin in the primary prevention setting. PubMed and Cochrane Central Register databases were searched from inception to May 1st, 2019. Expert opinion: The decision to initiate or withdraw aspirin for primary prevention requires an understanding of the equilibrium between efficacy and safety. In adults greater than 70 years of age, low to moderate cardiovascular risk, controlled diabetes, or at high risk of bleeding, initiation of aspirin for primary prevention should generally be avoided. Instead, risk factor modification should be prioritized. The net benefit of aspirin in those at high risk for cardiovascular disease and in those with uncontrolled diabetes is largely unknown. Ultimately, initiation or withdrawal of aspirin therapy must involve discussion of the patient's wishes and treatment expectations.