Search

Our study sought to determine the incidence of weekly marijuana use among HIV-infected and uninfected women, to identify correlates of weekly marijuana use, and to test its association with stage of HIV disease and type of HIV treatment received. A total of 2059 HIV-positive and 569 HIV-negative women from 6 sites were recruited between 1994 and 1995 and followed through 2000. After excluding women who reported weekly marijuana use at baseline, 2050 women were included in the analysis. The incidence rate for initiating marijuana was calculated and survival analysis was performed to determine the correlates of initiating weekly marijuana use. Three hundred and three women initiated weekly marijuana use within 5.5 years of the baseline visit, yielding a cumulative incidence (CI) of 14.8%. There was no significant difference in weekly marijuana use initiation between HIV-infected (CI = 14.5%) and HIV-uninfected women (CI = 16.0%). Younger age and having more sex partners was associated with incident weekly marijuana use among both infected and uninfected women. While undetectable viral load was associated with lower incidence rate (p < 0.001, RH = 0.44) and wasting syndrome with higher incidence (p < 0.01, relative hazard [RH] = 3.1), CD4 count was not. Compared to receiving no AIDS treatment at all, women who received basic combination antiretroviral therapy had significantly higher incidence of weekly marijuana use (p < 0.001, RH = 1.93), while highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) receivers had significantly lower incidence (p < 0.001, RH = 0.24). In summary, among HIV-infected women, the incidence of weekly marijuana use was associated with only one marker of HIV disease stage and HAART was associated with lower initiation rate of weekly marijuana use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The optimal sequencing of antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) is unknown. We compared several different antiretroviral treatment strategies.Methods: This multicenter, randomized, partially double-blind trial used a factorial design to compare pairs of sequential three-drug regimens, starting with a regimen including zidovudine and lamivudine or a regimen including didanosine and stavudine in combination with either nelfinavir or efavirenz. The primary end point was the length of time to the failure of the second three-drug regimen.Results: A total of 620 subjects who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were followed for a median of 2.3 years. Starting with a three-drug regimen containing efavirenz combined with zidovudine and lamivudine (but not efavirenz combined with didanosine and stavudine) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with a regimen containing nelfinavir (hazard ratio for failure of the second regimen, 0.71; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.48 to 1.06), as well as to delay the second virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.09), and significantly delayed the failure of the first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.39) and the first virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.34). Starting with zidovudine and lamivudine combined with efavirenz (but not zidovudine and lamivudine combined with nelfinavir) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with didanosine and stavudine (hazard ratio, 0.68), and significantly delayed both the first and the second virologic failures (hazard ratio for the first virologic failure, 0.39; hazard ratio for the second virologic failure, 0.47), as well as the failure of the first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.35). The initial use of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz resulted in a shorter time to viral suppression.Conclusions: The efficacy of antiretroviral drugs depends on how they are combined. The combination of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz is superior to the other antiretroviral regimens used as initial therapy in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial compared efavirenz (600 mg every 24 h) plus indinavir (1000 mg every 8 h) with placebo (every 24 h) plus indinavir (800 mg every 8 h) among 327 nucleoside analogue reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-experienced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adults. Patients received 50 cells/mm(3), >10,000 plasma HIV-1 RNA copies/mL, and no prior protease inhibitor or non-NRTI therapy. Patients had a mean of 2.8 years of prior NRTI therapy. At 24 weeks, plasma HIV-1 RNA level was <400 copies/mL in 68.2% of efavirenz versus 52.4% of placebo recipients (P=.004). CD4 cell count increases were 104+/-9 cells/mm(3) and 77+/-10 cells/mm(3) in efavirenz and placebo recipients, respectively (P=.023). Responses in efavirenz recipients were sustained at 48 weeks. Thus, efavirenz plus indinavir with concomitant NRTIs is effective therapy for NRTI-experienced patients.

We studied the effects of pilocarpine hydrochloride, a para-sympathomimetic agent, on major salivary gland output and subjective responses in 31 patients with salivary hypofunction. Pilocarpine hydrochloride (5-mg capsules, three times daily) was given for 5 months and a placebo was randomly assigned for 1 month in a double-blind fashion. Objective measurements of major salivary gland output, subjective impressions of oral moisture, treatment-related side effects, and a number of physiologic measures were assessed monthly. Pilocarpine significantly increased salivary output in 21 of the 31 patients. Subjective improvement in the feeling of oral dryness, speaking, chewing, and swallowing were reported by 27 individuals. Side effects, while common, generally were mild and tolerable. There were no significant alterations in cardiovascular or other physiologic measures. We conclude that pilocarpine is an effective and safe treatment for salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia in selected patients. The increase in major gland output provides beneficial natural secretions and relief of oral dryness.

The records of patients receiving acute peritoneal dialysis during the years 1983-1987 were retrospectively evaluated. Of a total of 59 patients receiving dialysis, 10 developed peritonitis. Staphylococcus aureus was the single most frequently isolated organism. However, gram-negative bacilli as a group were more common. We recommend the use of cloxacillin orally and gentamicin intra-peritoneally as empiric antibiotic coverage until results of culture reports are available.