Advertisement
The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource Follow Us Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter Download Our App
Professionals >> Visit The Body PROThe Body en Espanol

Journal Club: In Early HIV Infection, Little Reason to Delay Therapy

January 8, 2012

Every experienced HIV clinician will recognize the following new-patient scenario:

  • At least one, but often several negative HIV antibody tests in the past, generally due to being in a "high risk" group.
  • Recent non-specific viral-type illness that, in hindsight, was undoubtedly acute HIV infection, undiagnosed.
  • Now completely recovered, but found to be newly HIV antibody positive.
  • Physical exam normal, CD4 500 or higher, HIV RNA in the moderate range (10-100K).

How should patients like these be managed? Specifically, should antiretroviral therapy be started, or should they be observed?

Over in Journal of Infectious Diseases, the so-called Setpoint study -- a randomized strategy trial -- investigated whether a 36-week period of treatment would delay the need to go on continuous HIV therapy, compared with observation. After 130 of a planned 150 patients were enrolled, a Data Safety Monitoring Board elected to stop the study due to this key finding: "... the higher rate of progression to needing treatment in the Deferred Treatment group (50%) versus the Immediate Treatment (10%) group."

Advertisement
Importantly, the findings would have been even stronger in favor of Immediate Treatment if more up-to-date CD4 thresholds (500 rather than 350) were used as a criterion to start therapy. (The study was designed in the mid 2000s.)

Journal Club: In Early HIV Infection, Little Reason to Delay Therapy

How do these results influence practice? As I've noted before, patients diagnosed with recently-acquired HIV infection should be counseled that even if treatment is deferred, there is a high likelihood they will need to start treatment relatively soon.

It's also time to retire the "you may have 10 years before needing to go on therapy" counseling, something we might have been prone to do in the past to soften the blow of someone hearing that they're HIV positive. This kind of delay is highly unlikely, and may be limited to the small fraction of patients who have very low HIV RNA and very high CD4s.

Paul Sax is Clinical Director of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women's Hospital. His blog HIV and ID Observations is part of Journal Watch, where he is Editor-in-Chief of Journal Watch AIDS Clinical Care.



This article was provided by Journal Watch. Journal Watch is a publication of the Massachusetts Medical Society.
 
See Also
More Research on Primary (Acute) HIV Infection
Advertisement:
Find out how a Walgreens specially trained pharmacist can help you

Reader Comments:

Comment by: BR (San Francisco, CA) Sat., Feb. 11, 2012 at 9:57 am EST
This annoys and concerns me to no end. When I was diagnosed in 2008, I was given the same "soft blow", even though I did my reading and was in the 350-500 CD4 range, 10k-20k viral load range. I know, I know, knowledge progresses, but it bugs me that I could and probably should have been medicated earlier, rather than 2 years later, most likely just to save the state some money. I feel like it may have lobbed 10 years off my life, and added the potential for more complications.
Reply to this comment


Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)

Your Name:


Your Location:

(ex: San Francisco, CA)

Your Comment:

Characters remaining:

 
Advertisement