HIV policy: the path forward--a joint position paper of the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American College of Physicians.

Executive Summary The American College of Physicians (ACP) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) have jointly published 3 policy statements on AIDS, the first in 1986 [1], the second in 1988 [2], and the third in 1994 [3]. In 2001, the IDSA created the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA), and this updated policy paper is a collaboration between the ACP and the HIVMA of the IDSA. Since the last statement, many new developments call for the need to reexamine and update our policies relating to HIV infection. First, there have been major advances in treatment for HIV infection that have transformed HIV/AIDS from a terminal illness to a chronic disease for many of those who have access to potent therapies and expert medical care [4]. Second, there has been a profound expansion and intensification of the global HIV pandemic, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, coupled with significant US leadership and resources aimed at providing prevention and care services to affected populations in developing countries. Third, the concerns that were prevalent in the mid-1990s regarding the possibility of HIV transmission in health care settings have ultimately proven to be unfounded as the result of the adoption of universal precautions in those settings. In this article, we emphasize the public health and clinical imperatives for earlier identification of persons with HIV infection; the urgent need to expand access to state-of-the-art HIV care and treatment for infected individuals; the need for access to comprehensive prevention and education for those living with and those at risk for HIV infection; and the need for stronger national leadership to respond to the HIV epidemic in the United States and in the developing world. In December 2008, the ACP and HIVMA released a guidance statement on screening for HIV infection in health care settings that recommended that clinicians adopt routine screening for HIV infection and encourage patients to be tested. Also included in the guidance statement is a recommendation that clinicians determine the need for additional screening on an individual basis

Management of Fibroblast Growth Factor Inhibitor Treatment–emergent Adverse Events of Interest in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Background: Erdafitinib is indicated for the treatment of adults with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations progressing on/after one or more lines of prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Objective: To better understand the frequency and management of select treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) to enable optimal fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor (FGFRi) treatment. Design, setting, and participants: Longer-term efficacy and safety results of the BLC2001 (NCT02365597) trial in patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma were studied. Intervention: Erdafitinib schedule of 8 mg/d continuous in 28-d cycles, with uptitration to 9 mg/d if serum phosphate level was <5.5 mg/dl and no significant TEAEs occurred. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Adverse events were graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used for the cumulative incidence of the first onset of TEAEs by grade. Time to resolution of TEAEs was summarized descriptively. Results and limitations: At data cutoff, the median treatment duration was 5.4 mo among 101 patients receiving erdafitinib. Select TEAEs (total; grade 3) were hyperphosphatemia (78%; 2.0%), stomatitis (59%; 14%), nail events (59%; 15%), non–central serous retinopathy (non-CSR) eye disorders (56%; 5.0%), skin events (55%; 7.9%), diarrhea (55%; 4.0%), and CSR (27%; 4.0%). Select TEAEs were mostly of grade 1 or 2, and were managed effectively with dose modifications, including dose reductions or interruptions, and/or supportive concomitant therapies, resulting in few events leading to treatment discontinuation. Further work is needed to determine whether management is generalizable to the nonprotocol/general population. Conclusions: Identification of select TEAEs and appropriate management with dose modification and/or concomitant therapies resulted in improvement or resolution of most TEAEs in patients, allowing for continuation of FGFRi treatment to ensure maximum benefit. Patient summary: Early identification and proactive management are warranted to mitigate or possibly prevent erdafitinib side effects to allow for maximum drug benefit in patients with locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer