A 3-year interval is too short for re-screening women testing negative for human papillomavirus: a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results from an initial negative human papillomavirus (HPV) test with re-screening after 3 years in women attending two HPV-based screening programmes. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: Two cervical service screening programmes in Italy. POPULATION: Women aged 25-64 years invited to screening from April 2009 to October 2015. METHODS: Eligible women were invited to undergo an HPV test. Those with a negative HPV test went on to the next screening round 3 years later. Cytology triage was performed for HPV+ (HPV by Hybrid Capture 2) samples, with immediate colposcopy (if abnormal) and HPV re-testing 1 year later (if negative). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participation rate, positivity at HPV and at triage, referral rate to colposcopy, positive predictive value for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) at colposcopy, and detection rate for CIN2+. RESULTS: We present the results from 48 751 women at the first screening and 22 000 women at re-screening 3 years later. The response rate was slightly higher at the second screening (74.5 versus 72.1% at the first screening; referral rate, RR 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 1.07-1.14). Compared with the first screening, we observed a significant reduction at the second screening in terms of HPV positivity (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51-0.60), referral rate to colposcopy (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.41-0.53), CIN2+ detection rate (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.13-0.39), and positive predictive value (PPV) for CIN2+ at colposcopy (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: The very low frequency of disease and inadequate PPV at colposcopy indicate that a 3-year interval after a negative HPV test is too short. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Three years after a negative HPV the frequency of cervical disease is so low that re-screening is inefficient.

Raltegravir, tenofovir, and emtricitabine in an HIV-infected patient with HCV chronic hepatitis, NNRTI intolerance and protease inhibitors-induced severe liver toxicity.

BACKGROUND: In HIV-infected patients with HCV-related chronic hepatitis, liver impairment and drug toxicity may substantially reduce the number of possible therapeutic options. CASE DESCRIPTION: we here describe the case of an HCV-HIV coinfected woman who had repeated severe episodes of drug-related liver toxicity with indinavir, saquinavir, fosamprenavir, and darunavir, with minimal further therapeutic options left in this class. Previous treatment-limiting side effects with efavirenz and nevirapine also precluded use of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Introduction of an integrase-inhibitor regimen based on raltegravir, tenofovir, and emtricitabine allowed a prompt achievement of undetectable viral load and a substantial rise of CD4 count to high levels, with no subsequent episodes of hepatic toxicity, and no other side effects. CONCLUSIONS: given the relatively common prevalence of HCV-related chronic hepatitis among people with HIV, raltegravir might represent an important alternative option for a substantial number of patients who cannot be treated with protease inhibitors or NNRTI because of drug-related hepatic toxicity.