Search

Background: Cryptococcal disease remains one of the main causes of death in HIV-positive people who have low cluster of differentiation 4 (CD4) cell counts. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends screening HIV-positive people with low CD4 counts for cryptococcal antigenaemia (CrAg), and treating those who are CrAg-positive. This Cochrane Review examined the effects of an approach where those with low CD4 counts received regular prophylactic antifungals, such as fluconazole., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of antifungal drugs for the primary prevention of cryptococcal disease in adults and children who are HIV-positive., Search Methods: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE PubMed, Embase OVID, CINAHL EBSCOHost, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, conference proceedings for the International AIDS Society (IAS) and Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), and reference lists of relevant articles up to 31 August 2017., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials of adults and children, who are HIV-positive with low CD4 counts, without a current or prior diagnosis of cryptococcal disease that compared any antifungal drug taken as primary prophylaxis to placebo or standard care., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted and analysed data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We summarized all outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: Nine trials, enrolling 5426 participants, met the inclusion criteria of this review. Six trials administered fluconazole, while three trials administered itraconazole.Antifungal prophylaxis may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.43; 6 trials, 3220 participants; low-certainty evidence). For cryptococcal specific outcomes, prophylaxis probably reduces the risk of developing cryptococcal disease (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.49; 7 trials, 5000 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduces deaths due to cryptococcal disease (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; 5 trials, 3813 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Fluconazole prophylaxis may make no clear difference to the risk of developing clinically resistant Candida disease (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.56; 3 trials, 1198 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, there may be an increased detection of fluconazole-resistant Candida isolates from surveillance cultures (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.55; 3 trials, 539 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antifungal prophylaxis was generally well-tolerated with probably no clear difference in the risk of discontinuation of antifungal prophylaxis compared with placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.13; 4 trials, 2317 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifungal prophylaxis may also make no difference to the risk of having any adverse event (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30; 4 trials, 2317 participants; low-certainty evidence), or a serious adverse event (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.41; 4 trials, 888 participants; low-certainty evidence) when compared to placebo or standard care., Authors' Conclusions: Antifungal prophylaxis reduced the risk of developing and dying from cryptococcal disease. Therefore, where CrAG screening is not available, antifungal prophylaxis may be used in patients with low CD4 counts at diagnosis and who are at risk of developing cryptococcal disease.

Background: The advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (ART) has reduced the morbidity and mortality due to HIV infection. The World Health Organization (WHO) ART guidelines focus on three classes of antiretroviral drugs, namely nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) and protease inhibitors. Two of the most common medications given as first-line treatment are the NNRTIs, efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP). It is unclear which NNRTI is more efficacious for initial therapy. This systematic review was first published in 2010., Objectives: To determine which non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, either EFV or NVP, is more effective in suppressing viral load when given in combination with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors as part of initial antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and children., Search Methods: We attempted to identify all relevant studies, regardless of language or publication status, in electronic databases and conference proceedings up to 12 August 2016. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to 12 August 2016. We searched LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) and the Web of Science from 1996 to 12 August 2016. We checked the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Gateway from 1996 to 2009, as it was no longer available after 2009., Selection Criteria: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EFV to NVP in people with HIV without prior exposure to ART, irrespective of the dosage or NRTI's given in combination.The primary outcome of interest was virological success. Other primary outcomes included mortality, clinical progression to AIDS, severe adverse events, and discontinuation of therapy for any reason. Secondary outcomes were change in CD4 count, treatment failure, development of ART drug resistance, and prevention of sexual transmission of HIV., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors assessed each reference for inclusion using exclusion criteria that we had established a priori. Two review authors independently extracted data from each included trial using a standardized data extraction form. We analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis. We performed subgroup analyses for concurrent treatment for tuberculosis and dosage of NVP. We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures., Main Results: Twelve RCTs, which included 3278 participants, met our inclusion criteria. None of these trials included children. The length of follow-up time, study settings, and NRTI combination drugs varied greatly. In five included trials, participants were receiving concurrent treatment for tuberculosis.There was little or no difference between EFV and NVP in virological success (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.09; 10 trials, 2438 participants; high quality evidence), probably little or no difference in mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.19; 8 trials, 2317 participants; moderate quality evidence) and progression to AIDS (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.11; 5 trials, 2005 participants; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in all severe adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 8 trials, 2329 participants; very low quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference in discontinuation rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.25; 9 trials, 2384 participants; moderate quality evidence) and change in CD4 count (MD -3.03; 95% CI -17.41 to 11.35; 9 trials, 1829 participants; moderate quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in treatment failure (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.24; 5 trials, 737 participants; low quality evidence). Development of drug resistance is probably slightly less in the EFV arms (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; 4 trials, 988 participants; moderate quality evidence). No studies were found that looked at sexual transmission of HIV.When we examined the adverse events individually, EFV probably is associated with more people with impaired mental function (7 per 1000) compared to NVP (2 per 1000; RR 4.46, 95% CI 1.65 to 12.03; 6 trials, 2049 participants; moderate quality evidence) but fewer people with elevated transaminases (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.78; 3 trials, 1299 participants; high quality evidence), fewer people with neutropenia (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; 3 trials, 1799 participants; high quality evidence), and probably fewer people withrash (229 per 100 with NVP versus 133 per 1000 with EFV; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.00; 7 trials, 2277 participants; moderate quality evidence). We found that there may be little or no difference in gastrointestinal adverse events (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.21; 6 trials, 2049 participants; low quality evidence), pyrexia (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.73; 3 trials, 1799 participants; low quality evidence), raised alkaline phosphatase (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.50; 1 trial, 1007 participants; low quality evidence), raised amylase (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.73; 2 trials, 1071 participants; low quality evidence) and raised triglycerides (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.13; 2 trials, 1071 participants; low quality evidence). There was probably little or no difference in serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT; MD 3.3, 95% CI -2.06 to 8.66; 1 trial, 135 participants; moderate quality evidence), serum glutamic- pyruvic transaminase (SGPT; MD 5.7, 95% CI -4.23 to 15.63; 1 trial, 135 participants; moderate quality evidence) and raised cholesterol (RR 6.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 48.78; 1 trial, 64 participants; moderate quality evidence).Our subgroup analyses revealed that NVP slightly increases mortality when given once daily (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.90; 3 trials, 678 participants; high quality evidence). There were little or no differences in the primary outcomes for patients who were concurrently receiving treatment for tuberculosis., Authors' Conclusions: Both drugs have similar benefits in initial treatment of HIV infection when combined with two NRTIs. The adverse events encountered affect different systems, with EFV more likely to cause central nervous system adverse events and NVP more likely to raise transaminases, cause neutropenia and rash.

Background: Kaposi sarcoma (KS) remains the second most frequently diagnosed HIV-related malignancy (HRM) worldwide and most common HRM in sub-Saharan Africa where HIV is most prevalent and human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8), the precipitating agent for the development of KS, is endemic. The majority of KS patients would likely benefit from systemic chemotherapy in addition to the initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART). However, as paediatric staging and treatment criteria are not readily available, there are no uniform treatment criteria., Objectives: To describe the efficacy and effectiveness of current treatment options for HIV-associated KS in ART-treated paediatric populations., Search Methods: We used standard Cochrane methods to search electronic databases and conference proceedings with relevant search terms without limits to language., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies of HIV-infected infants and children <18 years old treated with ART and diagnosed with KS., Data Collection and Analysis: Abstracts of all studies identified by electronic or bibliographic scanning were examined independently by two authors. We initially identified 920 references and examined 15 in detail for study eligibility. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form., Main Results: After initially screening 920 titles, 15 full-text articles were closely examined by two authors. We identified four cohort studies that met our inclusion criteria for data extraction, coding, and potential meta-analysis.Using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessments, all observational studies had cohorts that were representative of average (treated and untreated) HIV-infected children with Kaposi sarcoma. For all outcomes of interest, no study adjusted for any other potential confounders. Two of four observational studies either explicitly described complete follow up of the study participants and/or described the characteristics of the participants lost to follow up.The use of ART together with a chemotherapeutic regimen versus ART alone appears to increase the likelihood of KS remission in HIV-infected children diagnosed with KS, although data are sparse and not adequately adjusted for staging of disease and comorbidities. Additionally, though data are sparse, the use of ART together with a chemotherapeutic regimen versus chemotherapy alone in some analyses appears to increase the likelihood of KS remission and reduce the risk of death in HIV-infected children diagnosed with KS.In this analysis, we found that the quality of evidence was very low due to small sample sizes and a paucity of paediatric literature., Authors' Conclusions: Data describing the efficacy of different treatment options for pediatric KS, to include chemotherapy and ART, are sparse. However, the use of ART together with a chemotherapy regimen may be superior to the use of ART alone or of chemotherapy alone.

Background: Yellow fever (YF) is an acute viral haemorrhagic disease prevalent in tropical Africa and Latin America. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there are 200,000 cases of YF and 30,000 deaths worldwide annually. Treatment for YF is supportive, but a live attenuated virus vaccine is effective for preventing infection. WHO recommends immunisation for all individuals > 9 months living in countries or areas at risk. However, the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) advises that YF vaccine is contraindicated in individuals with HIV. Given the large populations of HIV-infected individuals living in tropical areas where YF is endemic, YF vaccine may be an important intervention for preventing YF in immunocompromised populations., Objectives: To assess the risk and benefits of YF immunisation for people infected with HIV., Search Methods: We used standard Cochrane methods to search electronic databases and conference proceedings with relevant search terms without limits to language., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies of individuals with HIV infection who received YF vaccine (17DD or 17D-204)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors screened abstracts of references identified by electronic or bibliographic searches according to inclusion and exclusion criteria as detailed in the protocol. We identified 199 references and examined 19 in detail for study eligibility. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form., Main Results: Three cohort studies were included in the review. They examined 484 patients with HIV infection who received YF immunisation. Patients with HIV infection developed significantly lower concentrations of neutralising antibodies in the first year post immunisation compared to uninfected patients, though decay patterns were similar for recipients regardless of HIV infection. No study patient with HIV infection suffered serious adverse events as a result of YF vaccination., Authors' Conclusions: YF vaccination can produce protective levels of neutralising antibodies in HIV patients. Immunogenicity of YF vaccine is slightly less in HIV-infected patients compared to HIV-uninfected patients. No serious adverse events related to YF vaccine were observed in HIV-infected study participants. At time of immunisation, higher CD4 cell counts and lower HIV RNA levels in patients with HIV infection seem to be key determinants for development of protective titres of neutralising antibodies. The quality of the evidence for all outcomes was low to very low. YF vaccine may potentially be used safely in HIV-infected patients, although our conclusions are limited by small numbers of patients who have been reported. To assure maximum effectiveness YF vaccine should be given to HIV-infected patients after HIV replication has been suppressed.

Background: Antiretroviral drugs have been shown to reduce risk of mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and are also widely used for post-exposure prophylaxis for parenteral and sexual exposures. Sexual transmission may be lower in couples in which one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not and the infected partner is on antiretroviral therapy (ART)., Objectives: To determine if ART use in an HIV-infected member of an HIV-discordant couple is associated with lower risk of HIV transmission to the uninfected partner compared to untreated discordant couples., Search Methods: We used standard Cochrane methods to search electronic databases and conference proceedings with relevant search terms without limits to language., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCT), cohort studies and case-control studies of HIV-discordant couples in which the HIV-infected member of the couple was being treated or not treated with ART DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Abstracts of all trials identified by electronic or bibliographic scanning were examined independently by two authors. We initially identified 3,833 references and examined 87 in detail for study eligibility. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form., Main Results: One RCT and nine observational studies were included in the review. These ten studies identified 2,112 episodes of HIV transmission, 1,016 among treated couples and 1,096 among untreated couples. The rate ratio for the single randomised controlled trial was 0.04 [95% CI 0.00, 0.27]. All index partners in this study had CD4 cell counts at baseline of 350-550 cells/µL. Similarly, the summary rate ratio for the nine observational studies was 0.58 [95% CI 0.35, 0.96], with substantial heterogeneity (I(2)=64%). After excluding two studies with inadequate person-time data, we estimated a summary rate ratio of 0.36 [95% CI 0.17, 0.75] with substantial heterogeneity (I(2)=62%). We also performed subgroup analyses among the observational studies to see if the effect of ART on prevention of HIV differed by the index partner's CD4 cell count. Among couples in which the infected partner had ≥350 CD4 cells/µL, we estimated a rate ratio of 0.12 [95% CI 0.01, 1.99]. In this subgroup, there were 247 transmissions in untreated couples and 30 in treated couples., Authors' Conclusions: ART is a potent intervention for prevention of HIV in discordant couples in which the index partner has ≤550 CD4 cells/µL. A recent multicentre RCT confirms the suspected benefit seen in earlier observational studies and reported in more recent ones. Questions remain about durability of protection, the balance of benefits and adverse events associated with earlier therapy, long-term adherence and transmission of ART-resistant strains to partners. Resource limitations and implementation challenges must also be addressed.Counselling, support, and follow up, as well as mutual disclosure, may have a role in supporting adherence, so programmes should be designed with these components. In addition to ART provision, the operational aspects of delivering such programmes must be considered.

Background: More than 34 million people are presently living with HIV infection. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) can help these people to live longer, healthier lives, but adherence to ART can be difficult. Mobile phone text-messaging has the potential to help promote adherence in these patients., Objectives: To determine whether mobile phone text-messaging is efficacious in enhancing adherence to ART in patients with HIV infection., Search Methods: Using the Cochrane Collaboration's validated search strategies for identifying randomised controlled trials and reports of HIV interventions, along with appropriate keywords and MeSH terms, we searched a range of electronic databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), MEDLINE (via PubMed), PsycINFO, Web of Science, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Index Medicus. The date range was from  01 January 1980 to 01 November 2011. There were no limits to language or publication status., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which patients or their caregivers (in the case of infants and children) of any age, in any setting, and receiving ART were provided with mobile phone text messages as a means of promoting adherence to ART., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently examined the abstracts of all identified trials. We initially identified 243 references. Seventeen full-text articles were closely reviewed. Both authors abstracted data independently, using a pre-designed, standardised data collection form. When appropriate, data were combined in meta-analysis., Main Results: Two RCTs from Kenya were included in the review. One trial compared short weekly text messages against standard care. The other trial compared short daily, long daily, short weekly and long weekly messages against standard care. Both trials were with adult patients.In the trial comparing only short weekly messages to standard care, text messaging was associated with a lower risk of non-adherence at 12 months (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93) and with the non-occurrence of virologic failure at 12 months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99).In the trial that compared different intervals and lengths for text-messaging to standard care, long weekly text-messaging was not significantly associated with a lower risk of non-adherence compared to standard care (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.04). Patients receiving weekly text-messages of any length were at lower risk of non-adherence at 48 weeks than were patients receiving daily messages of any length (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99). There were no significant differences between weekly text-messaging of any length (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37) and between short or long messaging at either interval (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.27). Compared to standard care, any daily text-messaging, whether short or long, did not reduce the risk for non-adherence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.20).In meta-analysis of both trials, any weekly text-messaging (i.e. whether short or long messages) was associated with a lower risk of non-adherence at 48-52 weeks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89). The effect of short weekly text-messaging was also significant (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.89)., Authors' Conclusions: There is high-quality evidence from the two RCTs that mobile phone text-messaging at weekly intervals is efficacious in enhancing adherence to ART, compared to standard care. There is high quality evidence from one trial that weekly mobile phone text-messaging is efficacious in improving HIV viral load suppression. Policy-makers should consider funding programs proposing to provide weekly mobile phone text-messaging as a means for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Clinics and hospitals should consider implementing such programs. There is a need for large RCTs of this intervention in adolescent populations, as well as in high-income countries.

Background: Achieving and maintaining high levels of medication adherence are required to achieve the full benefits of antiretroviral therapy (ART), yet suboptimal adherence among children is common in both developed and developing countries., Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of the literature of evaluations of interventions for improving paediatric ART adherence., Search Methods: We created a comprehensive search strategy in order to identify all studies relevant to this topic. In July 2010, we searched the following electronic databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, Web of Social Science, NLM Gateway (supplemented by a manual search of the most recent abstracts not included in the Gateway database). We searched abstracts from the International AIDS Conference from 2002 to 2010, the International AIDS Society Conference on Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention from 2003 to 2009, and from the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections from 1997 to 2010. We used search strategies determined by the Cochrane Review Group on HIV/AIDS. We also contacted researchers who work in this field and checked reference lists of related systematic reviews and of all included studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve adherence to ART among children and adolescents (age ≤18 years) were included. Studies had to report adherence to ART as an outcome., Data Collection and Analysis: After one author performed an initial screening to exclude citations that did not meet the inclusion criteria, two authors did a second screening of those citations that likely met the criteria. For all articles that passed the second screening, full articles were pulled in order to make a final determination. Two authors then extracted data and graded methodological quality independently. Differences were resolved through discussion., Main Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. No single intervention was evaluated by more than one trial. Two studies were conducted in low-income countries. Two studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT), and two were non-randomised trials. An RCT of a home-based nursing programme showed a positive effect of the intervention on knowledge and medication refills (p=.002), but no effect on CD4 count and viral load. A second RCT of caregiver medication diaries showed that the intervention group had fewer participants reporting no missed doses compared to the control group (85% vs. 92%, respectively), although this difference was not statistically significant (p=.08). The intervention had no effect on CD4 percentage or viral load. A non-randomised trial of peer support group therapy for adolescents demonstrated no change in self-reported adherence, yet the percentage of participants with suppressed viral load increased from 30% to 80% (p=.06). The second non-randomised trial found that the percentage of children achieving >80% adherence was no different between children on a lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) regimen compared to children on a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase regimen (p=.781). However, the proportion of children achieving virological suppression was significantly greater for children on the LPV/r regimen than for children on the NNRTI-containing regimen (p=.002)., Authors' Conclusions: A home-based nursing intervention has the potential to improve ART adherence, but more evidence is needed. Medication diaries do not appear to have an effect on adherence or disease outcomes. Two interventions, an LPV/r-containing regimen and peer support therapy for adolescents, did not demonstrate improvements in adherence, yet demonstrated greater viral load suppression compared to control groups, suggesting a different mechanism for improved health outcomes. Well-designed evaluations of interventions to improve paediatric adherence to ART are needed.

Background: Antiretroviral drugs have been shown to reduce risk of mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and are also widely used for post-exposure prophylaxis for parenteral and sexual exposures. Observational data, ecological studies and models suggest that sexual transmission may be lower in couples in which one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not and the infected partner is on antiretroviral therapy (ART)., Objectives: To determine if ART use in an HIV-infected member of an HIV-discordant couple is associated with lower risk of HIV transmission to the uninfected partner compared to untreated discordant couples., Search Strategy: We used standard Cochrane methods to search electronic databases and conference proceedings with relevant search terms without limits to language., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials, cohort studies and case-control studies of HIV-discordant couples in which the HIV-infected member of the couple was being treated or not treated with ART DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Abstracts of all trials identified by electronic or bibliographic scanning were examined independently by two authors. We initially identified 1814 references and examined 24 in detail for study eligibility. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form., Main Results: One randomised controlled trial and seven observational studies were included in the review. These eight studies identified 464 episodes of HIV transmission, 72 among treated couples and 392 among untreated couples. The rate ratio for the single randomised controlled trial was 0.04 [95% CI 0.00, 0.27]. All index partners in this study had CD4 cell counts at baseline of 350-550 cells/µL. Similarly, the summary rate ratio for the seven observational studies was 0.34 [95% CI 0.13, 0.92], with substantial heterogeneity (I(2)=73%). After excluding two studies with inadequate person-time data, we estimated a summary rate ratio of 0.16 [95% CI 0.07, 0.35] with no noted heterogeneity (I(2)=0%). We also performed subgroup analyses among the observational studies to see if the effect of ART on prevention of HIV differed by the index partner's CD4 cell count. Among couples in which the infected partner had ≥350 CD4 cells/µL, we estimated a rate ratio of 0.02 [95% CI 0.00, 2.87]. In this subgroup, there were 61 transmissions in untreated couples and none in treated couples., Authors' Conclusions: ART is a potent intervention for prevention of HIV in discordant couples in which the index partner has ≤550 CD4 cells/µL. A new multicentre randomised controlled trial confirms the suspected benefit seen in earlier observational studies. Questions remain about durability of protection, the balance of benefits and adverse events associated with earlier therapy, long-term adherence and transmission of ART-resistant strains to partners. Resource limitations and implementation challenges must also be addressed.Counselling, support, and follow up, as well as mutual disclosure, may have a role in supporting adherence, so programmes should be designed with these components. In addition to ART provision, the operational aspects of delivering such programmes must be considered.

Background: The transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is closely related to the sexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Similar risk behaviours, such as frequent unprotected intercourse with different partners, place people at high risk of HIV and STIs, and there is clear evidence that many STIs increase the likelihood of HIV transmission. STI control, especially at the population or community level, may have the potential to contribute substantially to HIV prevention.This is an update of an existing Cochrane review. The review's search methods were updated and its inclusion and exclusion criteria modified so that the focus would be on one well-defined outcome. This review now focuses explicitly on population-based biomedical interventions for STI control, with change in HIV incidence being an outcome necessary for a study's inclusion., Objectives: To determine the impact of population-based biomedical STI interventions on the incidence of HIV infection., Search Strategy: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science/Social Science, PsycINFO, and Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), for the period of 1 January1980 - 16 August 2010. We initially identified 6003 articles and abstracts. After removing 776 duplicates, one author (TH) removed an additional 3268 citations that were clearly irrelevant. Rigorously applying the inclusion criteria, three authors then independently screened the remaining 1959 citations and abstracts. Forty-six articles were chosen for full-text scrutiny by two authors. Ultimately, four studies were included in the review.We also searched the Aegis database of conference abstracts, which includes the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), the International AIDS Conference (IAC), and International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention (IAS) meetings from their inception dates (1993, 1985 and 2001, respectively) through 2007. We manually searched the web sites of those conferences for more recent abstracts (up to 2010, 2010 and 2009, respectively)  In addition to searching the clinical trials registry at the US National Institutes of Health, we also used the metaRegister of Controlled Trials.We checked the reference lists of all studies identified by the above methods., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials involving one or more biomedical interventions in general populations (as opposed to occupationally or behaviourally defined groups, such as sex workers) in which the unit of randomisation was either a community or a treatment facility and in which the primary outcome was incident HIV infection. The term "community" was interpreted to include a group of villages, an arbitrary geographical division, or the catchment population of a group of health facilities., Data Collection and Analysis: Three authors (BN, LB, TH) independently applied the inclusion criteria to potential studies, with any disagreements resolved by discussion. Trials were examined for completeness of reporting. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form., Main Results: We included four trials. One trial evaluated mass treatment of all individuals in a particular community. The other three trials evaluated various combinations of improved syndromic STI management in clinics, STI counselling, and STI treatment.In the mass treatment trial in rural southwestern Uganda, after three rounds of treatment of all community members for STIs, the adjusted rate ratio (aRR) of incident HIV infection was 0.97 (95% CI 0.81 - 1.2), indicating no effect of the intervention. The three STI management intervention studies were all conducted in rural parts of Africa. One study, in northern Tanzania, showed that the incidence of HIV infection in the intervention groups (strengthened syndromic management of STIs in primary care clinics) was 1.2% compared with 1.9% in the control groups (aRR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 - 0.79), corresponding to a 42% reduction (95% CI 21.0% - 58.0%) in HIV incidence in the intervention group. Another study, conducted in rural southwestern Uganda, showed that the aRR of behavioural intervention and STI management compared to control on HIV incidence was 1.00 (95% CI 0.63 - 1.58). In the third STI management trial, in eastern Zimbabwe, there was no effect of the intervention on HIV incidence (aRR = 1.3, 95% CI 0.92 - 1.8). These are consistent with data from the mass treatment trial showing no intervention effect. Overall, pooling the data of the four studies showed no significant effect of any intervention (rate ratio [RR] = 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 - 1.2).Combining the mass treatment trial and one of the STI management trials, we find that there is a significant 12.0% reduction in the prevalence of syphilis for those receiving a biomedical STI intervention (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 - 0.96). For gonorrhoea, we find a statistically significant 51.0% reduction in its prevalence in those receiving any of these interventions (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.77). Finally, for chlamydia, we found no significant difference between any biomedical intervention and control (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 - 1.4)., Authors' Conclusions: We failed to confirm the hypothesis that STI control is an effective HIV prevention strategy. Improved STI treatment services were shown in one study to reduce HIV incidence in an environment characterised by an emerging HIV epidemic (low and slowly rising prevalence), where STI treatment services were poor and where STIs were highly prevalent; Incidence was not reduced in two other settings. There is no evidence for substantial benefit from a presumptive treatment intervention for all community members. There are, however, other compelling reasons why STI treatment services should be strengthened, and the available evidence suggests that when an intervention is accepted it can substantially improve quality of services provided.

Background: The advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has reduced the morbidity and mortality due to HIV. The World Health Organisation (WHO) antiretroviral treatment (ART) guidelines focus on three classes of antiretroviral drugs, namely: nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) and protease inhibitors (PI). Two of the most common medications given in first-line treatment are the NNRTIs, efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP). It is unclear which NNRTI is more efficacious for initial therapy., Objectives: To determine which NNRTI, EFV or NVP, is more efficacious when given in combination with two NRTIs as part of initial ART for HIV infection in adults and children., Search Strategy: We used a comprehensive and exhaustive strategy in an attempt to identify all relevant studies, regardless of language or publication status, in electronic databases and conference proceedings from 1996 to 2009., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials comparing EFV to NVP in HIV-infected individuals without prior exposure to ART, irrespective of the dosage or NRTI backbone.The primary outcome of interest was virologic response to ART. Other primary outcomes included mortality, clinical progression, severe adverse events, and discontinuation of therapy for any reason. Secondary outcomes were immunologic response to ART, treatment failure, development of ART drug resistance, and prevention of sexual transmission of HIV., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors assessed each reference for inclusion and exclusion criteria established a priori. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis and reported as per dosage of NVP., Main Results: We identified seven randomised controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria.The trials were pooled as per dosage of NVP. None of these trials included children.The seven trials enrolled 1,688 participants and found no critical differences between EFV and NVP, except for different toxicity profiles. EFV is more likely to cause central nervous system side-effects, while NVP is more likely to result in raised transaminases and neutropoenia. There was a higher mortality rate in the NVP 400mg once daily arm.The quality of literature to support these conclusions is moderate to high. Drug resistance was slightly less common with EFV than NVP, but the quality of this literature is low since only one of the seven studies reported on this outcome. No studies reported on sexual transmission of HIV. The length of follow-up time, study settings, and NRTI backbone varied greatly., Authors' Conclusions: Both drugs have equivalent efficacies in initial treatment of HIV infection when combined with two NRTIs, but different side effects.

Background: The introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (ART) as treatment for HIV infection has greatly improved mortality and morbidity for adults and children living with HIV around the world. Two of the most common medications given in first-line ART are the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) zidovudine (AZT) and the nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NtRTI) tenofovir (TDF)., Objectives: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TDF compared with AZT in combination with one NRTI and one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) as part of first-line ART for HIV-infected people in resource-limited settings, Search Strategy: Standard Cochrane methods were used to search electronic databases and conference proceedings with relevant search terms without limits to language., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of HIV-infected patients aged 5 years and older were included. Primary outcomes of interest included mortality, serious adverse events, virologic response to ART, and adherence/tolerance/retention. Secondary outcomes included immunologic response to ART, development of ART drug resistance, and prevention of sexual transmission of HIV., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors assessed each reference for inclusion and exclusion criteria established a priori. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form., Main Results: Two randomised controlled trials contributed to this literature, enrolling 586 participants, and found no critical difference between TDF and AZT in regards to serious adverse events or virologic response. The trials did find higher rates of adherence and immunologic response in TDF-containing regimens compared with those containing AZT. The quality of the literature to support this conclusion is moderate to high. Drug resistance was more common for TDF than AZT, but the quality of this literature is low, with only one study reporting this outcome. It should be noted that the two studies compared two different drugs in addition to TDF and AZT; one had lamivudine (3TC) and nevirapine (NVP) and the other had emtricitabine (FTC) and efavirenz (EFV)., Authors' Conclusions: We conclude that for the critical outcomes of virologic response and serious adverse events, initial ART regimens containing TDF are equivalent to those containing AZT. However, TDF is superior to AZT in terms of immunologic response and adherence and less frequent emergence of resistance. How much the other drugs in the regimens contributed to these findings is unclear, and true head-to-head trials are still warranted. The role of each drug in initial ART likely will be driven by their specific toxicities.

Background: The introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (ART) as treatment for HIV infection has greatly improved mortality and morbidity for adults and children living with HIV around the world. Two common medications given in first-line antiretroviral therapy are the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) stavudine (d4T) or zidovudine (AZT)., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of d4T compared to AZT in combination with one NRTI and one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), two additional NNRTIs, or one NRTI and one protease inhibitor (PI), as part of first-line ART for HIV-infected people in low-resource settings., Search Strategy: Standard Cochrane methods were used to search electronic databases and conference proceedings with relevant search terms without limits to language., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of HIV-infected patients 5 years of age and older were included. Primary outcomes of interest included mortality, severe adverse events, virologic response to ART, and adherence/tolerance/retention. Secondary outcomes included immunologic response to ART, development of ART drug resistance, and prevention of sexual transmission of HIV., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors assessed each reference for inclusion and exclusion criteria established a priori. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form., Main Results: Nine randomised controlled trials were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The nine trials enrolled 2,159 participants but looked at a multiplicity of drug combinations. Despite this, a reasonably robust literature suggests no statistically significant difference between the two drug combinations, including severe adverse events and adherence/tolerance/retention. The quality of the literature was found overall to be low to very low for all key outcomes. Only one study reported on drug resistance, and no studies reported on sexual transmission of HIV. The length of follow-up time and study settings varied greatly., Authors' Conclusions: While ideally future research would focus on direct comparison of standard therapeutic combinations of d4T+3TC+an NNRTI and AZT+3TC+an NNRTI to compare these regimens more directly, it is unlikely that additional trials will be mounted. Observational studies should focus on understanding outcomes, including toxicity and tolerability, in low- and middle-income countries.

Background: Diarrhoea is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among infants and children worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) is a condition that similarly disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries; of the nearly 2.1 million children under age 15 years living with HIV/AIDS, the large majority reside in sub-Saharan Africa. Infants and children with HIV infection have more frequent and more severe diarrhoea than children without HIV. Interventions including vitamin A, zinc and cotrimoxazole may contribute substantially to preventing diarrhoea in children with HIV infection or exposure to HIV., Objectives: We perform a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and nonrandomised studies that examine the effectiveness of vitamin A, zinc and cotrimoxazole on mortality and morbidity from diarrhoea in HIV-infected and -exposed infants and children., Search Strategy: Electronic databases including Pubmed, Central and EMBASE were searched without limits to language from 1980 to April 2010. Conference database searches were performed, experts were contacted and bibliographies were handsearched., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomised studies (NRSs) that examined the effectiveness of the three interventions were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed citations for eligibility and double-extracted included studies. Assessment of bias of individual studies was performed independently by both reviewers. Only two summary estimates were performed due to heterogeneity in study design and interventions., Main Results: Four RCTs were identified for vitamin A. One RCT was identified for zinc. One RCT and two NRSs were identified for cotrimoxazole. Vitamin A reduced mortality overall in children with HIV infection (four studies). A pooled estimate of three studies for reduction in mortality from vitamin A compared to placebo had a relative risk (DerSimonian and Laird method, random effects) of 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.31 to 0.79) in 267 patients. Diarrheoa-specific mortality did not reach statistical significance and diarrhoeal morbidity outcomes were variable in three trials. Zinc supplementation reduced the number of physician visits for watery diarrhoea in one trial. Cotrimoxazole reduced mortality and hospitalisations compared to placebo in one RCT, although diarrhoea-specific morbidities were not significant., Authors' Conclusions: Vitamin A shows benefits in reduction of mortality in HIV-infected children. The effect of vitamin A on children with HIV exposure is not clear and needs further review. Zinc and combination vitamin A, zinc and micronutrient supplementation did not show an effect compared to vitamin A alone in children with HIV infection. Cotrimoxazole reduced mortality and some morbidity in children with HIV infection. Further research may clarify the effects of these interventions on morbidity from diarrhoea and in the population of children with HIV exposure.

Background: According to consensus, initiation of therapy is best based on CD4 cell count, a marker of immune status, rather than on viral load, a marker of virologic replication. For patients with advanced symptoms, treatment should be started regardless of CD4 count. However, the point during the course of HIV infection at which antiretroviral therapy (ART) is best initiated in asymptomatic patients remains unclear. Guidelines issued by various agencies provide different initiation recommendations according to resource availability. This can be confusing for clinicians and policy-makers when determining the best time to initiate therapy. Optimizing the initiation of ART is clearly complex and must, therefore, be balanced between individual and broader public health needs., Objectives: To assess the evidence for the optimal time to initiate ART in treatment-naive, asymptomatic, HIV-infected adults, Search Strategy: We formulated a comprehensive and exhaustive search strategy in an attempt to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress). In August 2009, we searched the following electronic journal and trial databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We also searched the electronic conference database of NLM Gateway, individual conference proceedings and prospective trials registers. We contacted researchers and relevant organizations and checked reference lists of all included studies., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of ART consisting of three drugs initiated early in the disease at high CD4 counts as defined by the trial. Early initiation could be at levels of 201-350, 351-500, or >500 cells/microL, with the comparison group initiating ART at CD4 counts below 200 x 10(6) cells/microL or as defined by the trial., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and graded methodological quality. Data extraction and methodological quality were checked by a third author who resolved differences when these arose. Where clinically meaningful to do so, we meta-analysed dichotomous outcomes using the relative risk (RR) and report the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs)., Main Results: One completed trial (N = 816) and one sub-group (N = 249) of a larger trial met inclusion criteria. We combined the mortality data for both trials comparing initiating ART at CD4 levels at 350 cells/microL or between 200 and 350 cells/microL with deferring initiation of ART to CD4 levels of 250 cells/microL or 200 cells/microL. There was a statistically significant reduction in death when starting ART at higher CD4 counts. Risk of death was reduced by 74% (RR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.62; P = 0.002). Risk of tuberculosis was reduced by 50% in the groups starting ART early; this was not statistically significant, with the reduction as much as 74% or an increased risk of up to 12% (RR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.26, 1.12; P = 0.01). Starting ART at enrollment (when participants had CD4 counts of 350 cells/microL) rather than deferring to starting at a CD4 count of 250 cells/microL reduced the risk of disease progression by 70%; this was not statistically significant, with the reduction in risk as much as 97% or an increased risk of up to 185% (RR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.03, 2.85; P = 0.29).One RCT found no statistically significant difference in the number of independent Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in the early and standard ART groups when we conducted an intention-to-treat analysis (RR = 1.72; 95% CI: 0.98, 3.03; P = 0.06). However, when analyzing only participants who actually commenced ART in the deferred group (n = 160), the trial authors report a statistically significant increase in the incidence of zidovudine-related anaemia (8.1%) compared with those in the early initiation group (3.4%) (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.88; P = 0.02)., Authors' Conclusions: There is evidence of moderate quality that initiating ART at CD4 levels higher than 200 or 250 cells/microL reduces mortality rates in asymptomatic, ART-naive, HIV-infected people. Practitioners and policy-makers may consider initiating ART at levels

Background: Highly active antiretroviral therapy has reduced the morbidity and mortality of patients with HIV/AIDS. A common first-line ART regimen includes a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). If treatment failure occurs, a change to second-line therapy is necessary., Objectives: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the optimum antiretroviral regimen for patients with HIV who fail first-line therapy (ART-naive) with d4T+3TC+NVP; d4T+3TC+EFV; ZDV+3TC+NVP; and ZDV+3TC+EFV., Search Strategy: Electronic databases and conference proceedings were searched with relevant search terms without limits to language., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of HIV-infected adult patients administered second-line ART after virologic failure of a first-line regimen were included. The primary outcome measure included the proportion of patients achieving undetectable plasma HIV RNA concentration (viral load). Secondary outcome measures included change in mean CD4 cell count, clinical resolution of symptoms, rate of adverse events, rate of change in therapy for failure, rate of change in therapy for toxicity, and mortality., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors assessed each reference for inclusion and exclusion criteria established a priori. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form., Main Results: Twenty-one records were identified in total, 6 of which were duplicates. None of the records met inclusion criteria., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to evaluate second-line therapies in patients with HIV who fail first-line treatment with d4T+3TC+NVP; d4T+3TC+EFV; ZDV+3TC+NVP; and ZDV+3TC+EFV. Current recommendations are based on available resources and results from individualised treatment decisions based on resistance testing and clinician choice.

Background: Populations such as healthcare workers (HCWs), injection drug users (IDUs), and people engaging in unprotected sex are all at risk of being infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Animal models show that after initial exposure, HIV replicates within dendritic cells of the skin and mucosa before spreading through lymphatic vessels and developing into a systemic infection (CDC 2001). This delay in systemic spread leaves a "window of opportunity" for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) using antiretroviral drugs designed to block replication of HIV (CDC 2001). PEP aims to inhibit the replication of the initial inoculum of virus and thereby prevent establishment of chronic HIV infection., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of antiretroviral PEP post-occupational exposure to HIV., Search Strategy: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AIDSearch, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness were searched from 1985 to January 2005 to identify controlled trials. There were no language restrictions. Because no controlled clinical trials were retrieved, the search was repeated on 31 May 2005 in MEDLINE, AIDSearch and EMBASE using a search strategy to identify analytic observational studies. Handsearches of the reference lists of all pertinent reviews and studies found were also undertaken. Experts in the field of HIV prevention were contacted., Selection Criteria: Types of studies: All controlled trials (including randomized clinical trials and controlled clinical trials). If no controlled trials were found, analytic studies (e.g. cohort and case-control studies) were considered. Descriptive studies (i.e. studies with no comparison groups) were excluded. Types of participants included:HCWs exposed to any known or potentially HIV contaminated product;anyone exposed to a needlestick contaminated by known or potentially HIV-infected blood or other bodily fluid in an occupational setting; andanyone exposed through the mucous membranes to an HIV-infected or potentially infected substance in occupational setting.Excluded: Sex workers (PEP post-sexual exposure is addressed in another Cochrane review (Martín 2005)). Types of interventions: Any intervention that administered single or combinations of antiretrovirals as PEP to people exposed to HIV through percutaneous injuries and/or occupational mucous membrane exposures when the HIV status of the source patient was positive or unknown. Studies comparing two types of PEP regimens were considered, as were studies comparing PEP with no intervention. Types of outcome measures:Incidence of HIV infection in those given PEP versus those given placebo or a different PEP regimen; Adherence to PEP; Complications of PEPTypes of outcome measures: Incidence of HIV infection in those given PEP versus those given placebo or a different PEP regimen; Adherence to PEP; Complications of PEP DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data concerning outcomes, details of the interventions, and other study characteristics were extracted by two independent authors (TY and JA) using a standardized data extraction form (Table 04). A third author (GK) resolved disagreements. The following information was gathered from each included study: location of study, date, publication status, demographics (e.g. age, gender, occupation, risk behavior, etc.) of participants/exposure modality, form of PEP used, duration of use, and outcomes. Odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as the measure of effect. A meta-analysis was performed for adverse events where two-drug regimens were compared with three-drug regimens. Due to overlap between Puro 2000 and Puro 2005, the former was not included in the combined analysis., Main Results: Effect of PEP on HIV seroconversionNo randomized controlled trials were identified. Only one case-control study was included. HIV transmission was significantly associated with deep injury (OR 15, 95% CI 6.0 to 41), visible blood on the device (OR 6.2, 95% CI 2.2 to 21), procedures involving a needle placed in the source patient's blood vessel (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.7 to 12), and terminal illness in the source patient (OR 5.6, 95% CI 2.0 to 16). After controlling for these risk factors, no differences were detected in the rates at which cases and controls were offered post-exposure prophylaxis with zidovudine. However, cases had significantly lower odds of having taken zidovudine after exposure compared to controls (OR 0.19, 95%CI 0.06 to 0.52). No studies were found that evaluated the effect of two or more antiretroviral drugs for occupational PEP. Adherence to and complications with PEPEight reports from observational comparative studies confirmed findings that adverse events were higher with a three-drug regimen, especially one containing indinavir. However, discontinuation rates were not significantly different., Authors' Conclusions: The use of occupational PEP is based on limited direct evidence of effect. However, it is highly unlikely that a definitive placebo-controlled trial will ever be conducted, and, therefore, on the basis of results from a single case-control study, a four-week regimen of PEP should be initiated as soon as possible after exposure, depending on the risk of seroconversion. There is no direct evidence to support the use of multi-drug antiretroviral regimens following occupational exposure to HIV. However, due to the success of combination therapies in treating HIV-infected individuals, a combination of antiretroviral drugs should be used for PEP. Healthcare workers should be counseled about expected adverse events and the strategies for managing these. They should also be advised that PEP is not 100% effective in preventing HIV seroconversion. A randomized controlled clinical trial is neither ethical nor practical. Due to the low risk of HIV seroconversion, a very large sample size would be required to have enough power to show an effect. More rigorous evaluation of adverse events, especially in the developing world, are required. Seeing that current practice is partly based on results from individual primary animal studies, we recommend a formal systematic review of all relevant animal studies.

Background: A favourable regimen for people infected with HIV/AIDS is one that provides optimal efficacy, durability of antiretroviral activity, tolerability, and has low adverse effects and drug-drug interactions. The combination of the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor nevirapine (NVP), and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, stavudine (d4T) and lamivudine (3TC), is widely used as first-line therapy, especially in low-resource countries. Analysis of the efficacy, durability and tolerability of the regimen is thus important to clinicians, consumers and policy-makers living in both rich and poor countries., Objectives: To examine the efficacy of the stavudine, lamivudine and nevirapine regimen for the treatment of HIV infection and AIDS in adults., Search Strategy: We used the comprehensive search strategy developed specifically by the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Review Group to identify HIV/AIDS randomised controlled trials, and searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (searched July 2004); Embase (searched October 2004); and CENTRAL (July 2004). This search was supplemented with a search of AIDSearch (April 2005) to identify relevant conference abstracts, as well as searching reference lists of all eligible articles. The search was not limited by language or publication status., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of the stavudine, lamivudine and nevirapine regimen, compared with any other regimens for treating HIV/AIDS, in antiretroviral treatment-naive or antiretroviral treatment-experienced adults., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the trials and extracted data., Main Results: Our search resulted in 1,148 records, of which two studies described trials that met our inclusion criteria. One trial was a small single-centre Australian trial of 70 antiretroviral-naive participants, while the other trial was a large, multicentre trial, conducted in 14 countries, of 1,216 antiretroviral-naive participants. In both trials over 60% of participants were male. As the therapeutic combinations compared in both trials were not identical, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis to increase the power of the results. The main findings, therefore, are from the much larger trial, which was of a high quality. This trial found that there was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy (measured by treatment failure) between nevirapine and efavirenz (EFZ), when used in combination with 3TC and d4T (RR = 1.16; 95%CI: 0.95, 1.41). There was no statistically significant difference between once daily or twice-daily dosing of NVP, when used in combination with 3TC and d4T (RR = 1.00; 95%CI: 0.83; 1.21). It also showed that, compared with NVP plus EFZ, 3TC and d4T, a once-daily dosing of NVP, in combination with 3TC and d4T, performs better in averting treatment failure (RR = 0.82; 95%CI: 0.67, 1.00) than does twice-daily dosing of NVP with 3TC and d4T (RR = 0.82; 95%CI: 0.69; 0.97). Frequency of toxicity was higher in participants receiving NVP, compared with EFZ., Authors' Conclusions: The combination of nevirapine, 3TC and d4T is as efficacious as a combination of efavirenz, 3TC and d4T. Once-daily NVP with twice-daily 3TC and d4T is as efficacious as twice-daily NVP, 3TC and d4T. However, toxicity may be increased in the once-daily NVP regime. Additional trials of sufficient duration are required to provide better evidence for the use of this combination as a first line therapy. Ideally, trials should use standardised assessment measures especially with respect to measuring viral load, so that results can be compared and combined in meta-analyses.

Background: Cryptococcal disease is an opportunistic infection that causes significant morbidity and mortality in adults with HIV. Primary prophylaxis with antifungal interventions may decrease cryptococcal disease incidence and associated mortality., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of antifungal interventions for the primary prevention of cryptococcal disease in adults with HIV., Search Strategy: We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on the Health Sciences (LILACS), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR). We reviewed abstracts from the following relevant conferences: International AIDS Conference, International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment, and Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. We searched reference lists for all primary and other pertinent articles identified. We attempted to contact experts in the field, particularly primary authors of included studies, to better ensure completeness of included studies. We also approached pharmaceutical companies for any available and relevant unpublished data. The time period searched was from 1980 to August 2004. We placed no language restrictions on the search. Key words used include: meningitis, cryptococcal, cryptococcus, cryptococcosis, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, human immunodeficiency virus, prophylaxis, chemoprevention, antifungal agents, and the Cochrane screen for randomized controlled trials., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials using antifungal interventions for the primary prevention of cryptococcal disease in adults with HIV were selected., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility and quality. Trial authors, experts, and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for additional and/or missing information. Data were abstracted by two reviewers. Data were pooled, where appropriate, to yield summary estimates., Main Results: Five studies (N=1316) were identified. All study patients had CD4 cell counts <300 cells/microl, and the majority of patients had CD4 cell counts <150 cells/microl. When all five studies are analyzed as a single group (N=1316), the incidence of cryptococcal disease was decreased in those taking primary prophylaxis (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09, 0.46) compared to those taking placebo. However, there was no significant difference in overall mortality observed (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.71, 1.44). When the three studies using itraconazole as the intervention were analyzed together (N=798), the incidence of cryptococcal disease was decreased in those taking itraconazole for primary prophylaxis (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03, 0.51) compared to those taking placebo; however, there was no significant difference in overall mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.70, 1.80). When the two studies using fluconazole as the intervention were analyzed together (N=518), the incidence of cryptococcal disease was decreased in those taking fluconazole for primary prophylaxis (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07, 0.87) compared to those taking placebo; however, there was no significant difference in overall mortality (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.14, 2.62)., Authors' Conclusions: Antifungal primary prophylaxis with either itraconazole or fluconazole is effective in reducing the incidence of cryptococcal disease in adults with advanced HIV disease. However, neither of these interventions has a clear effect on overall mortality. Further research is needed to better understand these interventions and the populations in which they may be most effective.

Background: Combination antiretroviral therapy administered to HIV-infected individuals has been shown to decrease viral replication, improve immunologic function and delay the progression of HIV infection. However, because patient adherence to complicated combination-therapy antiretroviral regimens is difficult and because of concerns regarding the cumulative toxicity of antiretroviral drugs, regimens that utilize fewer antiretroviral agents are desirable., Objectives: To compare the use three- or four- versus two-drug antiretroviral maintenance regimens following successful initial therapy for HIV infection., Search Strategy: The following electronic databases were searched for relevant randomized trials or reviews: 1. MEDLINE for the years 1982-May 2003 using the search terms human immunodeficiency virus, antiretroviral therapy, maintenance therapy, zidovudine, lamivudine, indinavir, stavudine, saquinivir, nelfinavir, didanosine, zalcitabine, ritonovir, AIDS, anti-HIV agents, HIV infection and HIV seropositivity. 2. AIDSLINE for the years 1982- May 2003 using the search terms antiretroviral therapy, maintenance therapy, zidovudine, lamivudine, indinavir, stavudine, saquinivir, nelfinavir, didanosine, zalcitabine, ritonovir, anti-HIV agents. 3. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness and the Cochrane Clinical Trials Register in the Cochrane Library, through May 2003. 4. AIDSTRIALS, a specialist registry of current and completed trials maintained by the U.S. National Library of Medicine through May 2003. The abstracts of relevant conferences, including the International Conferences on AIDS, the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, the Infectious Disease Society of America annual meeting and the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, as indexed by AIDSLINE, were also reviewed. Reference lists of all review articles and primary articles identified were also searched., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials in which HIV-infected adults who had successfully completed initial three- or four-drug antiretroviral therapy were randomized to maintenance therapy with three or four drugs or maintenance therapy with two drugs. Successful initial therapy was defined by a plasma viral load of less than 500 copies/ml., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers assessed eligibility and trial quality. Attempts were made to contact the authors of the included abstract. Data on the number of patients experiencing loss of viral suppression were abstracted by two reviewers. The data were pooled, where appropriate, to yield odds ratios, using random effects models., Main Results: Four trials were identified including three published studies and one abstract. Compared to three- or four-drug maintenance therapy, maintenance therapies including fewer drugs were associated with a higher risk of virologic failure (loss of HIV suppression to non-detectable levels). Combining the results of all four studies yielded an odds ratio of 5.55 (95% confidence interval, 3.14 - 9.80). Similar results were obtained when the one abstract was excluded (odds ratio, 5.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.82 - 10.65). Performing subgroup analyses of studies using similar induction and maintenance regimens gave similar results. Maintenance regimens of zidovudine and lamivudine compared to maintenance regimens with zidovudine, lamivudine and indinavir, were associated with significantly higher rates of virologic failure (odds ratio, 4.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.80 - 11.58). Similarly, maintenance regimens that discontinued one or more protease inhibitor after including them in induction therapy were also associated with a significantly higher risk of virologic failure (odds ratio, 6.15; 95% confidence interval, 3.40 -11.10)., Reviewer's Conclusions: Although it is desirable to reduce the number of antiretroviral drugs given in combination therapy for reasons of compliance and toxicity, maintenance regimens with fewer drugs are associated with significantly increased resistance and risk of loss of viral suppression. Successful initial therapy, as evidenced by suppression of viral load, should not be modified in the maintenance phase unless clinically necessary.

Background: Combination antiretroviral therapy administered to HIV-infected individuals has been shown to improve immunologic function and delay the progression of HIV infection. However, because patient adherence to complicated combination-therapy antiretroviral regimens is difficult and because of concerns regarding cumulative toxicity of antiretroviral drugs, regimens that utilize fewer antiretroviral agents are desirable., Objectives: To compare the use three- or four- versus two-drug antiretroviral maintenance regimens following successful induction therapy for HIV infection., Search Strategy: The following electronic databases were searched for relevant randomized trials or reviews: 1. MEDLINE for the years 1982-1999 using the search terms human immunodeficiency virus, antiretroviral therapy, maintenance therapy, zidovudine, lamivudine, indinavir, stavudine, saquinivir, nelfinavir, didanosine, zalcitabine, ritonovir, AIDS, anti-HIV agents, HIV infection and HIV seropositivity 2. AIDSLINE for the years 1982-1999 using the search terms antiretroviral therapy, maintenance therapy, zidovudine, lamidvudine, indinavir, stavudine, saquinivir, nelfinavir, didanosine, zalcitabine, ritonovir, anti-HIV agents 3. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness and the Cochrane Clinical Trials Register in the Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 1999. 4. The specialist register of trials maintained by the Cochrane Collaborative Review Group on HIV Infection and AIDS 5. AIDSTRIALS, a specialist registry of current and completed trials maintained by the U.S. National Library of Medicine The abstracts of relevant conferences, including the International Conferences on AIDS, the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, the Infectious Disease Society of America annual meeting and the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, as indexed by AIDSLINE, were also reviewed. All reference lists of all review articles and primary articles identified were searched., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials in which HIV-infected adults who had successfully completed three- or four-drug antiretroviral induction therapy were randomized to maintenance therapy with three or four drugs or maintenance therapy with two drugs. Successful induction therapy was defined by a plasma viral load of less than 500 copies/ml., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers assessed eligibility and trial quality. Attempts were made to contact the authors of the included abstract. Data on the number of patients experiencing loss of viral suppression were abstracted by two reviewers. The data were pooled, where appropriate, to yield odds ratios, using random effects models., Main Results: Four trials were identified including three published studies and one abstract. Compared to three- or four-drug maintenance therapy, maintenance therapies including fewer drugs were associated with a higher risk of virologic failure (loss of HIV suppression to non-detectable levels). Combining the results of all four studies yielded an odds ratio of 5.55 (95% confidence interval, 3.14 - 9.80). Similar results were obtained when the one abstract was excluded (odds ratio, 5.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.82 - 10.65). Performing subgroup analyses of studies using the same induction and maintenance regimens gave similar results. Maintenance regimens of zidovudine and lamivudine compared to maintenance regimens with zidovuine, lamivudine and indinavir, were associated with significantly higher rates of virologic failure (odds ratio, 4.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.80 - 11.58). Similarly, maintenance regimens that discontinued one or more protease inhibitor after including them in induction therapy were also associated with a significantly higher risk of virologic failure (odds ratio, 6.15; 95% confidence interval, 3.40 -11.10). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)