The OK04 trial has shown that 48 weeks of lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy with reintroduction of nucleosides as needed was noninferior to continuation of triple therapy with 2 nucleosides and lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with prior stable suppression. However, it is still uncertain if this experimental strategy can maintain suppression in the long term. Patients entered this noninferiority trial (upper limit 95% confidence interval: +12%) with no history of virological failure while receiving a protease inhibitor and receiving 2 nucleosides plus lopinavir/ritonavir, with HIV RNA 500 copies per milliliter with exclusion of monotherapy patients who resuppressed to <50 copies per milliliter after resuming baseline nucleosides, or loss to follow-up, or change of randomized therapy other than reinduction. Through 96 weeks, percentage of patient without therapeutic failure was 87% (monotherapy, n = 100) vs. 78% (triple therapy, n = 98; 95% confidence interval: -20% to +1.2%). Percentage with HIV RNA <50 copies per milliliter (intention to treat, missing = failure, reinduction = failure): 77% (monotherapy) vs. 78% (triple therapy). Low-level viral rebound was more frequent in the monotherapy group. Twelve patients in the monotherapy group (12%) needed reinduction with nucleosides. Discontinuations due to adverse events were significantly more frequent in the triple therapy group (8%) than in the monotherapy group (0%); P = 0.003. At 96-week lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy with reintroduction of nucleosides as needed was noninferior to continuation of triple therapy. Incidence of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was significantly lower with monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114933).

Background. Demonstration of catheter tip colonization is usually performed by use of Maki's semiquantitative technique, although the superiority of

Data regarding the evolution ofStaphylococcusresistance in a whole country have a definite influence on the design of empirical treatment regimens. Nevertheless, incidence studies over long periods of time are expensive and very difficult to carry out. In order to ascertain the present situation of the antimicrobial resistance ofStaphylococcusin Spain and the change of this resistance over time, we performed five point prevalence studies (1986 to 2002) in a large group of Spanish hospitals (from 68 institutions in 1986 to 143 in 2002) collecting allStaphylococcusstrains isolated on a single selected day. All microorganisms were identified in the five studies at the same laboratory, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed against 17 antimicrobial agents by the agar dilution method and a microdilution method. During this period, there was an overall increase in resistance to most antimicrobials amongStaphylococcus aureus/coagulase-negative staphylococci, mainly to oxacillin (1.5%/32.5% in 1986 versus 31.2%/61.3% in 2002) (P< 0.001), erythromycin (7%/41.1% in 1986 versus 31.7%/63% in 2002) (P< 0.001), gentamicin (5.2%/25.4% in 1986 versus 16.9%/27.8% in 2002) (P< 0.001;P= 0.5), and ciprofloxacin (0.6%/1.1% in 1986 versus 33.9%/44.9% in 2002) (P< 0.001). All of the isolates were uniformly susceptible to glycopeptides, linezolid, and quinupristin/dalfopristin. Resistance ofS. aureusto trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole was very low (from 0.5% to 2.1%) (P= 0.152). Periodic performance of prevalence studies is a useful, inexpensive, and easy tool to know the nationwide situation of a microorganism and its resistance to antimicrobials; it also helps us assess the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance.

Tenofovir (TDF) and didanosine (ddI) are both adenosine analogues with convenient posology, strong potency and a relatively high genetic barrier for resistance. The popularity of this combination, however, has been questioned due to concerns about pharmacokinetic interactions and increased risk of pancreatitis and hyperglycemia. Less information is available about other possible side effects. HIV-infected individuals who initiated a protease inhibitor-sparing regimen between September 2002 and June 2003 at five hospitals, and had at least one subsequent visit within the next 12 months, always with complete virus suppression, were retrospectively assessed. Only drug-naive individuals and patients who simplified a prior successful antiretroviral regimen were analysed. Outcomes were analysed in 570 individuals according to treatment modality (98 drug-naive versus 472 simplified); the nucleoside analogue (NA) backbone (298 with TDF + ddI, 88 with ddI, 44 with TDF, and 140 with neither ddI nor TDF); and the third agent used (378 with non-nucleoside analogues versus 192 with NA). Significant CD4+ T-cell declines were seen in patients taking ddI + TDF with respect to all other NA combinations, including ddI or TDF separately. Patients exposed to high ddI doses or taking a third NA showed more pronounced CD4 declines. Plasma levels of ddI correlated with the extent of CD4+ T-cell loss. Patients receiving ddI + TDF-based combinations show CD4+ T-cell declines despite achieving complete virus suppression. This effect generally progresses with time. An imbalance in adenosine metabolites within CD4+ T lymphocytes may explain this phenomenon, which resembles the genetic purine nucleoside phosphorylase deficiency syndrome.