As in HIV-negative patients, we confirm the usefulness of FDG-PET/CT in investigation of FUO in HIV-positive patients even if they are viraemic. “
“We compared reasons for the choice of regimen, time to and reasons for third drug modification, virological response and change in CD4 T-cell counts in patients started on atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r)- vs. efavirenz (EFV)-based first-line regimens. We included patients from the Cohort of the Spanish HIV Research Network (CoRIS), selleck compound a multicentre cohort of HIV-positive treatment-naïve

subjects, in the study. We used logistic regression to assess factors associated with choosing ATV/r vs. EFV, proportional hazards models on the subdistribution hazard to estimate subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) for third drug modification, logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for virological response and linear regression to assess mean differences in CD4 T-cell count increase from baseline. Of 2167 patients, 10.7% started on ATV/r. ATV/r was more likely than EFV to be prescribed

in injecting drug users [adjusted OR 1.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03–3.33], in 2009–2010 (adjusted OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.08–2.47) and combined with abacavir plus lamivudine (adjusted OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.98–2.43). Multivariate http://www.selleckchem.com/products/gsk126.html analyses showed no differences, comparing ATV/r vs. EFV, in the risk of third drug modification (sHR 1.04; 95% CI 0.74–1.46) or in virological response (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.46–1.41); differences in mean CD4 T-cell count increase from baseline were at the limit of statistical significance (mean difference 29.8 cells/μL; 95% CI −4.1 to 63.6 cells/μL). In patients

until changing from EFV, 48% of changes were attributable to toxicity/adverse events, 16% to treatment failure/resistance, 3% to simplification, and 8 and 12%, respectively, to patients’ and physicians’ decisions; these percentages were 24, 6, 12, 14 and 24%, respectively, in those changing from ATV/r. ATV/r- and EFV-based regimens meet the requirements of both efficacy and safety for initial combination antiretroviral regimen, which relate to better durability. “
“Prompt HIV diagnosis and treatment are associated with increased longevity and reduced transmission. The aim of the study was to examine late diagnoses and to assess the quality of care following diagnosis. National surveillance and cohort data were used to examine late HIV diagnoses and to assess the quality of care received in the 12 months following HIV diagnosis. In 2011, 79% (4910/6219) of persons (15 years and over) diagnosed with HIV infection had CD4 counts reported within 3 months; of these, 49% were diagnosed late (CD4 count < 350 cells/μL). Adults aged 50 years and over were more likely to be diagnosed late (67%) compared with those aged 15–24 years (31%). Sixty-four per cent of heterosexual men were diagnosed late compared with 46% of women and 36% of men who have sex with men (MSM) (P < 0.01).