Alzheimer's disease and driving: review of the literature and consensus guideline from Belgian dementia experts and the Belgian road safety institute endorsed by the Belgian Medical Association

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a highly prevalent condition and its prevalence is expected to further increase due to the aging of the general population. It is obvious that the diagnosis of AD has implications for driving. Finally, driving discussions are also emotionally charged because driving is associated with independence and personal identity. However, it is not clear how to implement this in clinical practice and the Belgian law on driving is rather vague in its referral to neurodegenerative brain diseases in general nor does it provide clear-cut instructions for dementia or AD compared to for example driving for patients with epilepsy and as such does not prove to be very helpful. The present article reviews what is known from both literature and existing guidelines and proposes a consensus recommendation tailored to the Belgian situation agreed by both AD experts and the Belgian Road Safety Institute endorsed by the Belgian Medical Association. It is concluded that the decision about driving fitness should be considered as a dynamic process where the driving fitness is assessed and discussed early after diagnosis and closely monitored by the treating physician. The diagnosis of AD on itself definitely does not imply the immediate and full revocation of a driving license nor does it implicate a necessary referral for a formal on-road driving assessment. There is no evidence to recommend a reduced exposure or a mandatory co-pilot. A MMSE-based framework to trichotomise AD patients as safe, indeterminate or unsafe is presented. The final decision on driving fitness can only be made after careful history taking and clinical examination, neuropsychological, functional and behavioral evaluation and, only for selected cases, a formal assessment of driving performance.status: publishe

Rilpivirine in HIV-1-positive women initiating pregnancy: to switch or not to switch?

International audienceBackgroundSafety data about rilpivirine use during pregnancy remain scarce, and rilpivirine plasma concentrations are reduced during second/third trimesters, with a potential risk of viral breakthroughs. Thus, French guidelines recommend switching to rilpivirine-free combinations (RFCs) during pregnancy.ObjectivesTo describe the characteristics of women initiating pregnancy while on rilpivirine and to compare the outcomes for virologically suppressed subjects continuing rilpivirine until delivery versus switching to an RFC.MethodsIn the ANRS-EPF French Perinatal cohort, we included women on rilpivirine at conception in 2010–18. Pregnancy outcomes were compared between patients continuing versus interrupting rilpivirine. In women with documented viral suppression (<50 copies/mL) before 14 weeks of gestation (WG) while on rilpivirine, we compared the probability of viral rebound (≥50 copies/mL) during pregnancy between subjects continuing rilpivirine versus those switching to RFC.ResultsAmong 247 women included, 88.7% had viral suppression at the beginning of pregnancy. Overall, 184 women (74.5%) switched to an RFC (mostly PI/ritonavir-based regimens) at a median gestational age of 8.0 WG. Plasma HIV-1 RNA nearest delivery was <50 copies/mL in 95.6% of women. Among 69 women with documented viral suppression before 14 WG, the risk of viral rebound was higher when switching to RFCs than when continuing rilpivirine (20.0% versus 0.0%, P = 0.046). Delivery outcomes were similar between groups (overall birth defects, 3.8/100 live births; pregnancy losses, 2.0%; preterm deliveries, 10.6%). No HIV transmission occurred.ConclusionsIn virologically suppressed women initiating pregnancy, continuing rilpivirine was associated with better virological outcome than changing regimen. We did not observe a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes