Diagnosis of HIV-1 infection: Performance of Xpert Qual and Geenius supplemental assays in fourth generation ELISA-reactive samples.

BACKGROUND: Architect (AR) and Vidas (VD) fourth generation HIV screening immunoassays, which identify early stages of HIV infections, could have false positive results especially at low signal/cutoff (S/C) AR values. Geenius HIV1/2 (GS) is a specific confirmation line immunoassay that is not highly sensitive to early HIV infections. An HIV-1 RNA assay may better detect such infections. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate all AR-VD reactive samples with GS results, and to assess Xpert Qual HIV-1 RNA assay (XQ) as an alternative to GS, in the first low S/C AR-VD-reactive samples from a tested individual. STUDY DESIGN: First AR-VD-reactive-GS-tested results from all individuals with resolved HIV status, collected between March 2015 and March 2017 (n = 749), were retrospectively assessed. Samples with AR-VD-reactive-GS-discordant results and those with low S/C AR-VD-reactive results, were tested by XQ. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of GS and XQ sensitivity/specificity was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 94.1% (705/749) of AR-VD-reactive results were true HIV-1 positive. All samples with <3 S/C AR values were false positive. XQ resolved all first samples with AR-VD-reactive-GS-discordant results. The diagnostic accuracy of XQ in low (≤33 S/C) AR-VD-reactive samples was better than that of GS (97.6%, 81/83 versus 73.5%, 61/83, p < 0.01). ROC analysis for low S/C AR samples was optimal for pooled XQ and GS results. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating XQ in the current screening algorithm for the first AR-VD-reactive-GS-discordant samples may significantly reduce overall turn-around time of HIV-1 diagnosis.

A Population-Structured HIV Epidemic in Israel: Roles of Risk and Ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: HIV in Israel started with a subtype-B epidemic among men who have sex with men, followed in the 1980s and 1990s by introductions of subtype C from Ethiopia (predominantly acquired by heterosexual transmission) and subtype A from the former Soviet Union (FSU, most often acquired by intravenous drug use). The epidemic matured over the last 15 years without additional large influx of exogenous infections. Between 2005 and 2013 the number of infected men who have sex with men (MSM) increased 2.9-fold, compared to 1.6-fold and 1.3-fold for intravenous drug users (IVDU) and Ethiopian-origin residents. Understanding contemporary spread is essential for effective public health planning. METHODS: We analyzed demographic and virologic data from 1,427 HIV-infected individuals diagnosed with HIV-I during 1998-2012. HIV phylogenies were reconstructed with maximum-likelihood and Bayesian methods. RESULTS: Subtype-B viruses, but not A or C, demonstrated a striking number of large clusters with common ancestors having posterior probability ≥0.95, including some suggesting presence of transmission networks. Transmitted drug resistance was highest in subtype B (13%). MSM represented a frequent risk factor in cross-ethnic transmission, demonstrated by the presence of Israeli-born with non-B virus infections and FSU immigrants with non-A subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Reconstructed phylogenetic trees demonstrated substantial grouping in subtype B, but not in non-MSM subtype-A or in subtype-C, reflecting differences in transmission dynamics linked to HIV transmission categories. Cross-ethnic spread occurred through multiple independent introductions, with MSM playing a prevalent role in the transmission of the virus. Such data provide a baseline to track epidemic trends and will be useful in informing and quantifying efforts to reduce HIV transmission.

Comparable long-term efficacy of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and similar drug-resistance profiles in different HIV-1 subtypes.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of potentially different impact of Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/r) on non-B subtypes is confounded by dissimilarities in the conditions existing in different countries. We retrospectively compared its impact on populations infected with subtypes B and C in Israel, where patients infected with different subtypes receive the same treatment. METHODS: Clinical and demographic data were reported by physicians. Resistance was tested after treatment failure. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS. RESULTS: 607 LPV/r treated patients (365 male) were included. 139 had HIV subtype B, 391 C, and 77 other subtypes. At study end 429 (71%) were receiving LPV/r. No significant differences in PI treatment history and in median viral-load (VL) at treatment initiation and termination existed between subtypes. MSM discontinued LPV/r more often than others even when the virologic outcome was good (p = 0.001). VL was below detection level in 81% of patients for whom LPV/r was first PI and in 67% when it was second (P = 0.001). Median VL decrease from baseline was 1.9±0.1 logs and was not significantly associated with subtype. Median CD4 increase was: 162 and 92cells/µl, respectively, for patients receiving LPV/r as first and second PI (P = 0.001), and 175 and 98, respectively, for subtypes B and C (P<0.001). Only 52 (22%) of 237 patients genotyped while under LPV/r were fully resistant to the drug; 12(5%) were partially resistant. In48%, population sequencing did not reveal resistance to any drug notwithstanding the virologic failure. No difference was found in the rates of resistance development between B and C (p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with LPV/r appeared efficient and tolerable in both subtypes, B and C, but CD4 recovery was significantly better in virologically suppressed subtype-B patients. In both subtypes, LPV/r was more beneficial when given as first PI. Mostly, reasons other than resistance development caused discontinuation of treatment.

[HIV post exposure prophylaxis therapy - the experience of two major AIDS centers].

BACKGROUND: During recent years, the use of antiretroviral therapy expanded beyond the treatment of HIV-infected patients. Since the outset of the HIV epidemic, antiretroviral drugs were also used for post-exposure prevention of HIV infection in health workers and implemented after possible exposure during sex. In this study, we summarize the cases from the AIDS center in the Kaplan Medical Center and the Sheba Medical Center after possible exposure to HIV (occupational or sexual). AIM: The study aims to validate the different types of potential exposures to HIV encountered, the treatment and outcomes. METHODS: All the data regarding attendance at the AIDS Center in the Kaplan Medical Center during the years 2008-2010 for any possible HIV exposure (occupational or sexual) and for sexual exposure in the Sheba Medical Center AIDS Clinic during the years 2003-2008 was collected retrospectively. RESULTS: During the years of the study, 448 patients attended the Kaplan Medical Center for consultation after a potential exposure to HIV; 314 of the cases were because of occupational exposure, however, only in 11 (3.5%) of the cases, post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) treatment was advised. In the other 134 patients who attended for non-occupational potential exposure to HIV (18 cases of needle stick or sharp object injury and 116 of sexual exposure), for 46 (40%) of these cases, PEP was recommended. No evidence of HIV infection was found for any of the 448 patients who attended the clinic for possible exposure to HIV, regardless of the consultation that they received. In the Sheba Medical Center, during the years 2003-2008, 175 patients attended for consuLtation after potential sexual exposure to HIV. The medical staff of the clinic decided, after risk assessment, to recommend PEP to 140 (80%) of the cases. Similarly, in this case, no evidence of HIV infection was found (regardless of whether PEP was given or not). DISCUSSION: In potential occupational exposure to HIV it is possible, in most cases, to assess the risk for infection sufficiently so that only a few cases will need PEP. In potential sexual exposure to HIV, there are many cases where data regarding the potential source of infection is partial or missing, making the risk assessment more difficult. This may be the reason for the high percentage of patients in this situation who received PEP. From the data in this study, our cohort support PEP as being effective and safe.

Inhaled fluticasone causes iatrogenic cushing's syndrome in patients treated with Ritonavir.

INTRODUCTION: Ritonavir, a protease inhibitor (PI), is commonly used in the treatment of HIV-1 infection. It is a potent inhibitor of the hepatic cytochrome P450 superfamily. Therefore, its usage with other PI medications leads to significant increases in the levels of the latter PI, which allows a reduction in pill burden. Intranasal and inhaled corticosteroids are widely used for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma. Inhaled steroids do not usually lead to systemic adverse events, since their plasma concentrations are quite low due to extensive first-pass metabolism and clearance by CYP3A4. However, the coadministration of Ritonavir with inhaled (or intranasal) corticosteroids may result in an increase in the plasma corticosteroid levels due to the potent CYP3A4 inhibition by Ritonavir. This may cause Cushing's syndrome (laboratory and clinical) with adrenal suppression. METHODS: Plasma cortisol and urinary-free cortisol levels were determined using immunoassays. In the Synacthen test, plasma cortisol levels were measured at time 0 as well as at times 60, 120, and 150 minutes following an intramuscular injection of 0.25 mg Synacthen. RESULTS: We present here three HIV-1 female patients aged 12, 55 and 65 years who developed iatrogenic Cushing's syndrome with adrenal suppression following the coadministration of Ritonavir and inhaled Fluticasone, both at the standard recommended doses. CONCLUSIONS: The coadministration of Ritonavir and Fluticasone at the recommended doses caused, in our three patients, iatrogenic Cushing's syndrome with adrenal suppression. We suggest that this adverse event is underdiagnosed and high clinical suspicion is needed for early diagnosis and prenention of Addisonian crises. Thus, Fluticasone treatment should be avoided in patients who are treated with Ritonavir. Alternative therapeutic options for asthma control such as oral Montelukast or bronchodilators alone should be considered.