The relationship between HIV seroconversion illness, HIV test interval and time to AIDS in a seroconverter cohort.

Seroconversion illness is known to be associated with more rapid HIV disease progression. However, symptoms are often subjective and prone to recall bias. We describe symptoms reported as seroconversion illness and examine the relationship between illness, HIV test interval (time between antibody-negative and anibody-positive test dates) and the effect of both on time to AIDS from seroconversion. We used a Cox model, adjusting for age, sex, exposure group and year of estimated seroconversion. Of 1820 individuals, information on seroconversion illness was available for 1244 of whom 423 (34%) reported symptomatic seroconversion. Persons with a short test interval (< or = 2 months) were significantly more likely to report an illness than people with a longer interval (OR 6.76, 95% CI 4.75-9.62). Time to AIDS was significantly faster (P = 0.01) in those with a short test interval. The HIV test interval is a useful replacement for information on seroconversion illness in studies of HIV disease progression

Effect of misclassification of antiretroviral treatment status on the prevalence of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Estimates of the prevalence of transmitted HIV drug resistance (TDR) in a population are derived from resistance tests performed on samples from patients thought to be naïve to antiretroviral treatment (ART). Much of the debate over reliability of estimates of the prevalence of TDR has focused on whether the sample population is representative. However estimates of the prevalence of TDR will also be distorted if some ART-experienced patients are misclassified as ART-naïve.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The impact of misclassification bias on the rate of TDR was examined. We developed methods to obtain adjusted estimates of the prevalence of TDR for different misclassification rates, and conducted sensitivity analyses of trends in the prevalence of TDR over time using data from the UK HIV Drug Resistance Database. Logistic regression was used to examine trends in the prevalence of TDR over time.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The observed rate of TDR was higher than true TDR when misclassification was present and increased as the proportion of misclassification increased. As the number of naïve patients with a resistance test relative to the number of experienced patients with a test increased, the difference between true and observed TDR decreased. The observed prevalence of TDR in the UK reached a peak of 11.3% in 2002 (odds of TDR increased by 1.10 (95% CI 1.02, 1.19, p(linear trend) = 0.02) per year 1997-2002) before decreasing to 7.0% in 2007 (odds of TDR decreased by 0.90 (95% CI 0.87, 0.94, p(linear trend) < 0.001) per year 2002-2007. Trends in adjusted TDR were altered as the misclassification rate increased; the significant downward trend between 2002-2007 was lost when the misclassification increased to over 4%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The effect of misclassification of ART on estimates of the prevalence of TDR may be appreciable, and depends on the number of naïve tests relative to the number of experienced tests. Researchers can examine the effect of ART misclassification on their estimates of the prevalence of TDR if such a bias is suspected.</p

British HIV Association guidelines for the treatment of HIV-1-infected adults with antiretroviral therapy 2008

The 2008 BHIVA Guidelines have been updated to incorporate all the new relevant information (including presentations at the 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2008) since the last iteration. The guidelines follow the methodology outlined below and all the peer-reviewed publications and important, potentially treatment-changing abstracts from the last 2 years have been reviewed. The translation of data into clinical practice is often difficult even with the best possible evidence (i.e. two randomized controlled trials) because of trial design, inclusion criteria and precise surrogate marker endpoints (see Appendix). The recommendations based upon expert opinion have the least good evidence but perhaps provide an important reason for writing the guidelines to produce a consensual opinion about current practice. It must, however, be appreciated that such opinion is often wrong and should not stifle research to challenge it. Similarly, although the Writing Group seeks to provide guidelines to optimize treatment, such care needs to be individualized and we have not constructed a document that we would wish to see used as a ‘standard’ for litigation