Although unlicensed in Europe, unboosted ATV is often used in clinical practice for several reasons. In our sample, in most cases it was prescribed

because of RTV intolerance, and the presence of metabolic alterations or liver disease did not influence the choice of boosted formulations. After a mean follow-up of 23.9 months, the proportions of patients still being treated were similar in the two groups. There was no noteworthy difference in the incidence of virological failure or poor compliance. The only difference emerging from the results was the incidence of AEs. As expected, hyperbilirubinaemia and hyperlipidaemia were more frequent with boosted ATV. Co-administration of ATV and TDF is currently not recommended without RTV, as the ATV plasma concentration is substantially reduced in combination with TDF. Surprisingly, no real difference Wnt inhibitor in virological outcomes emerged between the two groups when TDF was present in the backbone therapy with another NRTI. No differences in CD4 cell count, HIV viral load or clinical worsening were noted during treatment. It is important to bear in mind that the study population had been undergoing HAART for a long period, although with no major differences between the two groups. In our opinion, the significant differences between

the two groups at baseline are not relevant for the evaluation of efficacy. The CD4 cell count was lower in the unboosted ATV group at baseline, but rose during follow-up, SCH772984 nmr to give similar values in the two groups, indicating a good outcome in terms of immune reconstitution. Efficacy results were not consistent with the findings of the CARE Study, which reported respectively 52.9% and 35.6% of boosted and unboosted ATV patients with undetectable viral load at week 48. This is quite likely to have been attributable to the fact that all patients enrolled in the CARE Study Early Access Programme (EAP) had detectable viral load at baseline because SPTBN5 of multidrug resistance, and because no other

therapeutic options were available. These patients’ low mean CD4 count at baseline confirmed their worse clinical stage: 253 cells/μL in the boosted ATV group and 230 cells/μL in the unboosted ATV group compared with 400 and 315 cells/μL, respectively, in our study. Only 30% of the patients in our series switched to ATV because of virological failure: although no data were available on HIV mutations, most of them switched to ATV to simplify therapy or for therapy-related toxicity; thus it is possible that this population had a better resistance profile. HCV co-infection was significantly more frequent in patients receiving unboosted ATV, so presumably this risk factor influenced the choice of the boosted formulation. The number of patients who interrupted ATV because of grade 3–4 hyperbilirubinaemia was low in both groups and there were no significant differences in the incidence of hepatotoxicity, suggesting good liver safety for both formulations.