A 48-week study of fat molecular alterations in HIV naïve patients starting tenofovir/emtricitabine with lopinavir/ritonavir or efavirenz: Greater deleterious effects of efavirenz.

S’han descrit informes contradictoris sobre els efectes d’Efavirenz (EFV) i lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) al teixit adipós subcutani (SAT). L’objectiu d’aquest estudi era evaluar els efectes moleculars i clínics de LPV/r i EFV, tots dos en combinació amb tenofovir/emtricitabina (TDF/FTC), sobre el SAT dels pacients infectats per VIH sense tractament antirretroviral previ. Després de 48 setmanes de tractament, TDF/FTC més LPV/r va augmentar de forma significativa el greix de les extremitats i els paràmetres lipídics, mentre que TDF/FTC/EFV només va augmentar de forma significativa el colesterol total i LDL. La expressió dels gens implicats en la diferenciació dels adipòcits i dels gens relacionats amb la mitocondria no va canviar de forma significativa en el SAT dels pacients exposats a LPV/r, mentre que Cyt b i els gens relacionats amb la imflamació estaven estimulats de forma significativa en el SAT dels pacients exposats a EFV.

Lower limb high arterial flow induced by tenofovir and emtricitabine treatment.

Here, we describe a case of an HIV-infected patient with right lower limb oedema that appeared after initiation of tenofovir and emtricitabine treatment. The patient was fully investigated by serial heart and vessel echo-Doppler examination. Oedema of the lower limb was attributed to a transient drug-induced fivefold increase in peripheral artery flow, which was induced by a reduction in peripheral arterial resistance. The possible mechanisms of disease are discussed.

Abacavir/Lamivudine Versus Tenofovir/Emtricitabine in Virologically Suppressed Patients Switching from Ritonavir-Boosted Protease Inhibitors to Raltegravir

There are few clinical data on the combination abacavir/lamivudine plus raltegravir. We compared the outcomes of patients from the SPIRAL trial receiving either abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine at baseline who had taken at least one dose of either raltegravir or ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors. For the purpose of this analysis, treatment failure was defined as virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/ml) or discontinuation of abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine because of adverse events, consent withdrawal, or lost to follow-up. There were 143 (72.59%) patients with tenofovir/emtricitabine and 54 (27.41%) with abacavir/lamivudine. In the raltegravir group, there were three (11.11%) treatment failures with abacavir/lamivudine and eight (10.96%) with tenofovir/emtricitabine (estimated difference 0.15%; 95% CI -17.90 to 11.6). In the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor group, there were four (14.81%) treatment failures with abacavir/lamivudine and 12 (17.14%) with tenofovir/emtricitabine (estimated difference -2.33%; 95% CI -16.10 to 16.70). Triglycerides decreased and HDL cholesterol increased through the study more pronouncedly with abacavir/lamivudine than with tenofovir/emtricitabine and differences in the total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio between both combinations of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) tended to be higher in the raltegravir group, although differences at 48 weeks were not significant. While no patient discontinued abacavir/lamivudine due to adverse events, four (2.80%) patients (all in the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor group) discontinued tenofovir/emtricitabine because of adverse events (p=0.2744). The results of this analysis do not suggest that outcomes of abacavir/lamivudine are worse than those of tenofovir/emtricitabine when combined with raltegravir in virologically suppressed HIV-infected adults.

Cost-effectiveness of Tenofovir / Emtricitabine / Efavirenz versus Zidovudine / Lamivudine / Efavirenz as fist-line regimens for the treatment of HIV-infected patients in low-income settings

The Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) is the combination of at least three antiretroviral compounds. The combination purpose is to reduce the likelihood of drug resistance. However in the long-term the resistance to the first-line combination occurs and leads to treatment failure. Thus, a second-line and even a third-line regimen are recommended in the long run. [...] [P. 5] The two treatment alternatives under comparison: Tenofovir (300 mg) CO-formulated with Emtricitabine (200 mg) and Efavirenz (600 mg) currently known under the brand name Atripla (R) was introduced in July 2006 in the United States market. The excellent safety profile and ease of use make this combination a perfect first-line regimen in low-income settings. Therefore, this treatment option was recommended in WHO 2006 reviewed guidelines. Unfortunately, Tenofovir and Emtricitabine compounds are still costly and not yet widely available. For a matter of simplification this regimen is referred in this report as "the recent" therapy. Initially, we had in mind to consider the most frequently used first-line regimen in low-income countries (Stavudine / Larnivudme / Nevirapine) as a comparator for this economic evaluation. Unfortunately, according to the literature review results (see Annex 3); there was no data available comparing head to head the effectiveness of this regimen with the recent one. Instead, we selected a less frequently but commonly used first-line regimen in low-income countries as a comparator: Zidovudine, Lamivudine, Efavirenz. This combination has extensive experience in durability, safety and toxicity and seems to be an optimal choice for a first-line regimen according to the clinical trial group 384 team. Furthermore, Zidovudine, one of the compounds of this combination is now recommended as one of the preferred NNRTI [Non Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors] options to be considered by countries instead of Stavudine (the most used NNRTI in limited-income countries). As this combination has been included in the WHO guidelines as a first-line therapy since 2003 when WHO launched the "3 by 5" scaling-up initiative, this combination of drugs is referred in this report as the "old" therapy. Objectives: The primary objective of this economic evaluation is to compare the two first-line HAARTs introduced above, in a low-income setting context. Both of these combinations are recommended by the 2006 WHO guidelines as potential first-line regimens. The secondary objective is to provide a simplified and comprehensible cost-effectiveness modeling tool in order to help policy makers, in resource-limited settings, make decisions about which first-line HAART to fund using the scarce resources available. [P. 6-7]

Emtricitabine-Tenofovir Concentrations and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Efficacy in Men Who Have Sex with Men

Drug concentrations associated with protection from HIV-1 acquisition have not been determined. We evaluated drug concentrations among men who have sex with men in a substudy of the iPrEx trial (1). In this randomized placebo-controlled trial, daily oral doses of emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were used as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in men who have sex with men. Drug was detected less frequently in blood plasma and in viable cryopreserved peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) in HIV-infected cases at the visit when HIV was first discovered compared with controls at the matched time point of the study (8% versus 44%; P < 0.001) and in the 90 days before that visit (11% versus 51%; P < 0.001). An intracellular concentration of the active form of tenofovir, tenofovir-diphosphate (TFV-DP), of 16 fmol per million PBMCs was associated with a 90% reduction in HIV acquisition relative to the placebo arm. Directly observed dosing in a separate study, the STRAND trial, yielded TFV-DP concentrations that, when analyzed according to the iPrEx model, corresponded to an HIV-1 risk reduction of 76% for two doses per week, 96% for four doses per week, and 99% for seven doses per week. Pro-phylactic benefits were observed over a range of doses and drug concentrations, suggesting ways to optimize PrEP regimens for this population.

Preexposure Chemoprophylaxis for HIV Prevention in Men Who Have Sex with Men.

Background: Antiretroviral chemoprophylaxis before exposure is a promising approach for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition. Methods: We randomly assigned 2499 HIV-seronegative men or transgender women who have sex with men to receive a combination of two oral antiretroviral drugs, emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC-TDF), or placebo once daily. All subjects received HIV testing, risk-reduction counseling, condoms, and management of sexually transmitted infections. Results: The study subjects were followed for 3324 person-years (median, 1.2 years; maximum, 2.8 years). Of these subjects, 10 were found to have been infected with HIV at enrollment, and 100 became infected during follow-up (36 in the FTC-TDF group and 64 in the placebo group), indicating a 44% reduction in the incidence of HIV (95% confidence interval, 15 to 63; P=0.005). In the FTC-TDF group, the study drug was detected in 22 of 43 of seronegative subjects (51%) and in 3 of 34 HIV-infected subjects (9%) (P<0.001). Nausea was reported more frequently during the first 4 weeks in the FTC-TDF group than in the placebo group (P<0.001). The two groups had similar rates of serious adverse events (P=0.57). Conclusions: Oral FTC-TDF provided protection against the acquisition of HIV infection among the subjects. Detectable blood levels strongly correlated with the prophylactic effect. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00458393.) N Engl J Med 2010;363:2587-99.

Decreasing population selection rates of resistance mutation K65R over time in HIV-1 patients receiving combination therapy including tenofovir.

OBJECTIVES: The use of tenofovir is highly associated with the emergence of mutation K65R, which confers broad resistance to nucleoside/nucleotide analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), especially when tenofovir is combined with other NRTIs also selecting for K65R. Although recent HIV-1 treatment guidelines discouraging these combinations resulted in reduced K65R selection with tenofovir, updated information on the impact of currently recommended regimens on the population selection rate of K65R is presently lacking. METHODS: In this study, we evaluated changes over time in the selection rate of resistance mutation K65R in a large population of 2736 HIV-1-infected patients failing combination antiretroviral treatment between 2002 and 2010. RESULTS: The K65R resistance mutation was detected in 144 patients, a prevalence of 5.3%. A large majority of observed K65R cases were explained by the use of tenofovir, reflecting its wide use in clinical practice. However, changing patterns over time in NRTIs accompanying tenofovir resulted in a persistent decreasing probability of K65R selection by tenofovir-based therapy. The currently recommended NRTI combination tenofovir/emtricitabine was associated with a low probability of K65R emergence. For any given dual NRTI combination including tenofovir, higher selection rates of K65R were consistently observed with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor than with a protease inhibitor as the third agent. DISCUSSION: Our finding of a stable time trend of K65R despite elevated use of tenofovir illustrates increased potency of current HIV-1 therapy including tenofovir.

Antiretroviral treatment of adult HIV infection: 2012 recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA panel.

CONTEXT: New trial data and drug regimens that have become available in the last 2 years warrant an update to guidelines for antiretroviral therapy (ART) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adults in resource-rich settings. OBJECTIVE: To provide current recommendations for the treatment of adult HIV infection with ART and use of laboratory-monitoring tools. Guidelines include when to start therapy and with what drugs, monitoring for response and toxic effects, special considerations in therapy, and managing antiretroviral failure. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA EXTRACTION: Data that had been published or presented in abstract form at scientific conferences in the past 2 years were systematically searched and reviewed by an International Antiviral Society-USA panel. The panel reviewed available evidence and formed recommendations by full panel consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Treatment is recommended for all adults with HIV infection; the strength of the recommendation and the quality of the evidence increase with decreasing CD4 cell count and the presence of certain concurrent conditions. Recommended initial regimens include 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine) plus a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz), a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (atazanavir or darunavir), or an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (raltegravir). Alternatives in each class are recommended for patients with or at risk of certain concurrent conditions. CD4 cell count and HIV-1 RNA level should be monitored, as should engagement in care, ART adherence, HIV drug resistance, and quality-of-care indicators. Reasons for regimen switching include virologic, immunologic, or clinical failure and drug toxicity or intolerance. Confirmed treatment failure should be addressed promptly and multiple factors considered. CONCLUSION: New recommendations for HIV patient care include offering ART to all patients regardless of CD4 cell count, changes in therapeutic options, and modifications in the timing and choice of ART in the setting of opportunistic illnesses such as cryptococcal disease and tuberculosis.

Antiretroviral treatment of adult HIV infection: 2014 recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel.

IMPORTANCE: New data and antiretroviral regimens expand treatment choices in resource-rich settings and warrant an update of recommendations to treat adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). OBJECTIVE: To provide updated treatment recommendations for adults with HIV, emphasizing when to start treatment; what treatment to start; the use of laboratory monitoring tools; and managing treatment failure, switches, and simplification. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA SYNTHESIS: An International Antiviral Society-USA panel of experts in HIV research and patient care considered previous data and reviewed new data since the 2012 update with literature searches in PubMed and EMBASE through June 2014. Recommendations and ratings were based on the quality of evidence and consensus. RESULTS: Antiretroviral therapy is recommended for all adults with HIV infection. Evidence for benefits of treatment and quality of available data increase at lower CD4 cell counts. Recommended initial regimens include 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs; abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine) and a third single or boosted drug, which should be an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (dolutegravir, elvitegravir, or raltegravir), a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz or rilpivirine) or a boosted protease inhibitor (darunavir or atazanavir). Alternative regimens are available. Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy is generally not recommended, but NRTI-sparing approaches may be considered. New guidance for optimal timing of monitoring of laboratory parameters is provided. Suspected treatment failure warrants rapid confirmation, performance of resistance testing while the patient is receiving the failing regimen, and evaluation of reasons for failure before consideration of switching therapy. Regimen switches for adverse effects, convenience, or to reduce costs should not jeopardize antiretroviral potency. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: After confirmed diagnosis of HIV infection, antiretroviral therapy should be initiated in all individuals who are willing and ready to start treatment. Regimens should be selected or changed based on resistance test results with consideration of dosing frequency, pill burden, adverse toxic effect profiles, comorbidities, and drug interactions.

Sequence-Based Hepatitis B Virus Antiviral Resistance Testing in Switzerland

BACKGROUND: A growing number of patients with chronic hepatitis B is being treated for extended periods with nucleoside and/or nucleotide analogs. In this context, antiviral resistance represents an increasingly common and complex issue. METHODS: Mutations in the hepatitis B virus (HBV) reverse transcriptase (rt) gene and viral genotypes were determined by direct sequencing of PCR products and alignment with reference sequences deposited in GenBank. RESULTS: Plasma samples from 60 patients with chronic hepatitis B were analyzed since March 2009. The predominant mutation pattern identified in patients with virological breakthrough was rtM204V/I ± different compensatory mutations, conferring resistance to L-nucleosides (lamivudine, telbivudine, emtricitabine) and predisposing to entecavir resistance (n = 18). Complex mutation patterns with a potential for multidrug resistance were identified in 2 patients. Selection of a fully entecavir resistant strain was observed in a patient exposed to lamivudine alone. Novel mutations were identified in 1 patient. Wild-type HBV was identified in 9 patients with suspected virological breakthrough, raising concerns about treatment adherence. No preexisting resistance mutations were identified in treatment-naïve patients (n = 13). Viral genome amplification and sequencing failed in 16 patients, of which only 2 had a documented HBV DNA > 1000 IU/ml. HBV genotypes were D in 28, A in 6, B in 4, C in 3 and E in 3 patients. Results will be updated in August 2010 and therapeutic implications discussed. CONCLUSIONS: With expanding treatment options and a growing number of patients exposed to nucleoside and/or nucleotide analogs, sequence-based HBV antiviral resistance testing is expected to become a cornerstone in the management of chronic hepatitis B.

Virologic and immunologic responses in treatment-naive patients to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or efavirenz with a common backbone.

Background: Atazanavir boosted with ritonavir (ATV/r) and efavirenz (EFV) are both recommended as first-line therapies for HIV-infected patients. We compared the 2 therapies for virologic efficacy and immune recovery. Methods: We included all treatment-naïve patients in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study starting therapy after May 2003 with either ATV/r or EFV and a backbone of tenofovir and either emtricitabine or lamivudine. We used Cox models to assess time to virologic failure and repeated measures models to assess the change in CD4 cell counts over time. All models were fit as marginal structural models using both point of treatment and censoring weights. Intent-to-treat and various as-treated analyses were carried out: In the latter, patients were censored at their last recorded measurement if they changed therapy or if they were no longer adherent to therapy. Results: Patients starting EFV (n = 1,097) and ATV/r (n = 384) were followed for a median of 35 and 37 months, respectively. During follow-up, 51% patients on EFV and 33% patients on ATV/r remained adherent and made no change to their first-line therapy. Although intent-to-treat analyses suggest virologic failure was more likely with ATV/r, there was no evidence for this disadvantage in patients who adhered to first-line therapy. Patients starting ATV/r had a greater increase in CD4 cell count during the first year of therapy, but this advantage disappeared after one year. Conclusions: In this observational study, there was no good evidence of any intrinsic advantage for one therapy over the other, consistent with earlier clinical trials. Differences between therapies may arise in a clinical setting because of differences in adherence to therapy.

Lipid changes in HIV-patients switching to the coformulated single tablet FTC/RPV/TDF (Eviplera®). Efficacy and safety analysis. GeSida Study 8114.

INTRODUCTION Rilpivirine (RPV) has a better lipid profile than efavirenz (EFV) in naïve patients (1). Switching to RPV may be convenient for many patients, while maintaining a good immunovirological control (2). The aim of this study was to analyze lipid changes in HIV-patients at 24 weeks after switching to Eviplera® (emtricitabine/RPV/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate [FTC/RPV/TDF]). MATERIALS AND METHODS Retrospective, multicentre study of a cohort of asymptomatic HIV-patients who switched from a regimen based on 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI)+protease inhibitor (PI)/non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or ritonavir boosted PI monotherapy to Eviplera® during February-December, 2013; all had undetectable HIV viral load for ≥3 months prior to switching. Patients with previous failures on antiretroviral therapy (ART) including TDF and/or FTC/3TC, with genotype tests showing resistance to components of Eviplera®, or who had changed the third drug of the ART during the study period were excluded. Changes in lipid profile and cardiovascular risk (CVR), and efficacy and safety at 24 weeks were analyzed. RESULTS Among 305 patients included in the study, 298 were analyzed (7 cases were excluded due to lack of data). Men 81.2%, mean age 44.5 years, 75.8% of HIV sexually transmitted. 233 (78.2%) patients switched from a regimen based on 2 NRTI+NNRTI (90.5% EFV/FTC/TDF). The most frequent reasons for switching were central nervous system (CNS) adverse events (31.0%), convenience (27.6%) and metabolic disorders (23.2%). At this time, 293 patients have reached 24 weeks: 281 (95.9%) have continued Eviplera®, 6 stopped it (3 adverse events, 2 virologic failures, 1 discontinuation) and 6 have been lost to follow up. Lipid profiles of 283 cases were available at 24 weeks and mean (mg/dL) baseline vs 24 weeks are: total cholesterol (193 vs 169; p=0.0001), HDL-c (49 vs 45; p=0.0001), LDL-c (114 vs 103; p=0.001), tryglycerides (158 vs 115; p=0.0001), total cholesterol to HDL-c ratio (4.2 vs 4.1; p=0.3). CVR decreased (8.7 vs 7.5%; p= 0.0001). CD4 counts were similar to baseline (653 vs 674 cells/µL; p=0.08), and 274 (96.8%) patients maintained viral suppression. CONCLUSIONS At 24 weeks after switching to Eviplera®, lipid profile and CVR improved while maintaining a good immunovirological control. Most subjects switched to Eviplera® from a regimen based on NNRTI, mainly EFV/FTC/TDF. CNS adverse events, convenience and metabolic disorders were the most frequent reasons for switching.

Incidence of HIV-1 drug resistance among antiretroviral treatment-naive individuals starting modern therapy combinations.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of drug resistance incidence to modern first-line combination antiretroviral therapies against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 are complicated by limited availability of genotypic drug resistance tests (GRTs) and uncertain timing of resistance emergence. METHODS: Five first-line combinations were studied (all paired with lamivudine or emtricitabine): efavirenz (EFV) plus zidovudine (AZT) (n = 524); EFV plus tenofovir (TDF) (n = 615); lopinavir (LPV) plus AZT (n = 573); LPV plus TDF (n = 301); and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATZ/r) plus TDF (n = 250). Virological treatment outcomes were classified into 3 risk strata for emergence of resistance, based on whether undetectable HIV RNA levels were maintained during therapy and, if not, whether viral loads were >500 copies/mL during treatment. Probabilities for presence of resistance mutations were estimated from GRTs (n = 2876) according to risk stratum and therapy received at time of testing. On the basis of these data, events of resistance emergence were imputed for each individual and were assessed using survival analysis. Imputation was repeated 100 times, and results were summarized by median values (2.5th-97.5th percentile range). RESULTS: Six years after treatment initiation, EFV plus AZT showed the highest cumulative resistance incidence (16%) of all regimens (<11%). Confounder-adjusted Cox regression confirmed that first-line EFV plus AZT (reference) was associated with a higher median hazard for resistance emergence, compared with other treatments: EFV plus TDF (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; range, 0.42-0.76), LPV plus AZT (HR, 0.63; range, 0.45-0.89), LPV plus TDF (HR, 0.55; range, 0.33-0.83), ATZ/r plus TDF (HR, 0.43; range, 0.17-0.83). Two-thirds of resistance events were associated with detectable HIV RNA level ≤500 copies/mL during treatment, and only one-third with virological failure (HIV RNA level, >500 copies/mL). CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of TDF instead of AZT and ATZ/r was correlated with lower rates of resistance emergence, most likely because of improved tolerability and pharmacokinetics resulting from a once-daily dosage.

Choice of Initial Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in Individuals With HIV Infection: Determinants and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND Current guidelines give recommendations for preferred combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). We investigated factors influencing the choice of initial cART in clinical practice and its outcome. METHODS We analyzed treatment-naive adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection participating in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and starting cART from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009. The primary end point was the choice of the initial antiretroviral regimen. Secondary end points were virologic suppression, the increase in CD4 cell counts from baseline, and treatment modification within 12 months after starting treatment. RESULTS A total of 1957 patients were analyzed. Tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC)-efavirenz was the most frequently prescribed cART (29.9%), followed by TDF-FTC-lopinavir/r (16.9%), TDF-FTC-atazanavir/r (12.9%), zidovudine-lamivudine (ZDV-3TC)-lopinavir/r (12.8%), and abacavir/lamivudine (ABC-3TC)-efavirenz (5.7%). Differences in prescription were noted among different Swiss HIV Cohort Study sites (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, compared with TDF-FTC-efavirenz, starting TDF-FTC-lopinavir/r was associated with prior AIDS (relative risk ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.78-4.35), HIV-RNA greater than 100 000 copies/mL (1.53; 1.07-2.18), and CD4 greater than 350 cells/μL (1.67; 1.04-2.70); TDF-FTC-atazanavir/r with a depressive disorder (1.77; 1.04-3.01), HIV-RNA greater than 100 000 copies/mL (1.54; 1.05-2.25), and an opiate substitution program (2.76; 1.09-7.00); and ZDV-3TC-lopinavir/r with female sex (3.89; 2.39-6.31) and CD4 cell counts greater than 350 cells/μL (4.50; 2.58-7.86). At 12 months, 1715 patients (87.6%) achieved viral load less than 50 copies/mL and CD4 cell counts increased by a median (interquartile range) of 173 (89-269) cells/μL. Virologic suppression was more likely with TDF-FTC-efavirenz, and CD4 increase was higher with ZDV-3TC-lopinavir/r. No differences in outcome were observed among Swiss HIV Cohort Study sites. CONCLUSIONS Large differences in prescription but not in outcome were observed among study sites. A trend toward individualized cART was noted suggesting that initial cART is significantly influenced by physician's preference and patient characteristics. Our study highlights the need for evidence-based data for determining the best initial regimen for different HIV-infected persons.