Executive summary: Pre-exposure prophylaxis for prevention of HIV infection in adults in Spain: July 2016.

Administration of antiretroviral drugs to individuals exposed to, but not infected by, HIV has been shown to reduce the risk of transmission. The efficacy of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) makes it obligatory to include it in an integral program of prevention of HIV transmission, together with other measures, such as use of the condom, training, counseling, and appropriate treatment of infected individuals. In this document, the AIDS Study Group (GeSIDA) of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica [SEIMC]) provides its views on this important subject. The available evidence on the usefulness of PrEP in the prevention of transmission of HIV is presented, and the components that should make up a PrEP program and whose development and implementation are feasible in Spain are set out.

Executive summary of the GESIDA/National AIDS Plan Consensus Document on antiretroviral therapy in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (updated January 2015).

In this update, antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended for all patients infected by type 1 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1). The strength and grade of the recommendation vary depending on the CD4+ T-lymphocyte count, the presence of opportunistic infections or comorbid conditions, age, and the efforts to prevent the transmission of HIV. The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable plasma viral load (PVL). Initial ART should comprise three drugs, namely, two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) and one drug from another family. Three of the recommended regimens, all of which have an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) as the third drug, are considered a preferred regimen; a further seven regimens, which are based on an INSTI, an non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), or a protease inhibitor boosted with ritonavir (PI/r), are considered alternatives. The reasons and criteria for switching ART are presented both for patients with an undetectable PVL and for patients who experience virological failure, in which case the rescue regimen should include three (or at least two) drugs that are fully active against HIV. The specific criteria for ART in special situations (acute infection, HIV-2 infection, pregnancy) and comorbid conditions (tuberculosis and other opportunistic infections, kidney disease, liver disease, and cancer) are updated.

[Lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection in special situations]. / Lopinavir/ritonavir en pacientes infectados por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana en situaciones especiales.

Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) is a protease inhibitor used for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in both normal patients and in certain situations. In patients with renal failure, LPV/r does not require dosage adjustment because it is metabolized in the liver. Cohort studies have shown that the incidence of varying degrees of renal disease and/or crystalluria related to combination antiretroviral therapy with tenofovir and some protease inhibitors (PI) does not appear with LPV/r or that the incidence is much lower with this combination. Neurocognitive impairments are described in a high proportion of patients with HIV infection and viral replication or related inflammatory activity in the subarachnoid space. In these patients, LPV/r is one of the therapeutic options. A score has been published that rates antiretroviral drugs according to the concentration attained in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). LPV/r levels reached in CSF exceed the IC50 of wild-type HIV and has a valuable score (score 3) of the drugs currently used. The most important comorbid condition is chronic hepatitis, due to its frequency and because the biotransformation of LPV/r occurs in the liver. In these circumstances, it is important to evaluate the influence of liver failure on blood drug levels and how these values may cause liver toxicity. LPV/r dose modification has not been established in the presence of liver failure. LPV/r-induced liver toxicity has only been reported with a certain frequency when liver enzymes were elevated at baseline or in patients with chronic hepatitis C, although most cases of liver toxicity were mild.

The effects of Maraviroc on liver fibrosis in HIV/HCV co-infected patients.

INTRODUCTION: The fibrogenesis analysis in quimeric CCR1 and CCR5 mice revealed that CCR5 mediates its pro-fibrogenic effects in hepatic cells and promoting stellate cells. The blockage of co-receptors could preserve the progression of hepatic fibrosis in HIV/HCV co-infected patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the beneficial effects on hepatic fibrosis in HIV/HCV co-infected patients that are on antiretroviral therapy (ART) with CCR5 co-receptor antagonists. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A multicentre, retrospective pilot study of the evaluation of hepatic fibrosis at mid- and long-term by non-invasive methods in a HIV/HCV co-infected patients cohort in the Valencian Community (Spain) that received ART with a CCR5 co-receptor antagonist. The cut-off points of serum marker tests of hepatic fibrosis were: AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI)<0.5 (F0-F1); >1.5 F2; >2 Cirrhosis and Forns Index<4.2 excludes fibrosis; >6.9>F2 fibrosis. Inclusion criteria was established for HIV/HCV co-infected patients on ART with CCR5 co-receptor antagonists that had no previous history of interferon and ribavirin treatment or those who were null-responders and received CCR5 co-receptor antagonist treatment in the previous year. Patients with HBV infection were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 71 male patients (69%) were reported. A CD4 nadir <100 cells/uL was observed in 42% of patients and 62% (44/71) had a basal CD4 level >350 cells/uL. According to genotypes, 50% were G-1a, 14% G-1b, 11% G-3 and 25% G-4. The median duration of treatment with Maraviroc (MVC) was the following: 45% took it over a year, 41% over two years and 14% over three years. Before starting treatment with MVC, we observed an initial fibrosis of F0-F1 in 49% of patients, F2-F3 in 24% and F4 in 27%. The medium follow-up was of 18.45 months. Progression to a higher fibrosis level was observed in five patients, 11 patients improved at least one stage and the others were stable over time. There were 38 patients taking MVC over two years, 27 patients in this group (59.38%) did not modify their fibrosis, 3 patients (11%) progressed and 8 (29.62%) showed regression of liver fibrosis in one stage. CONCLUSIONS: The data above shows a benefit over fibrosis progression with MVC, expressed by fibrosis serum marker tests in HIV/HCV co-infected patients with CCR5 tropism. The prolong treatment with MVC (over two years) has a better effect on liver fibrosis.