No abstract

Background. Protease inhibitor treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals hasbeen linked to the development of lipodystrophy. The effects of atazanavir on body fat distribution and related metabolic parameters were examined in antiretroviral-naive patients.Methods. HIV-positive patients with CD4 cell counts у100 cells/mm 3 were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms: (1) atazanavir, 400 mg given once daily, plus efavirenz placebo; or (2) efavirenz, 600 mg given once daily, plus atazanavir placebo; each drug was administered with fixed-dose zidovudine (300 mg) and lamivudine (150 mg) given twice daily, and patients were treated for at least 48 weeks. Fat distribution measurements (visceral adipose tissue [VAT], subcutaneous adipose tissue [SAT], and total adipose tissue [TAT], as measured by computed tomography; and appendicular fat, truncal fat, and total fat levels, as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), metabolic measurements (cholesterol and fasting triglyceride levels), and measurements of insulin resistance (fasting glucose and fasting insulin levels) were made at baseline and at week 48 of treatment for a subgroup of 111 atazanavir recipients and 100 efavirenz recipients.Results. Atazanavir and efavirenz treatments resulted in minimal to modest increases in fat accumulation, as measured by VAT, SAT, TAT, appendicular fat, truncal fat, and total fat levels; results were comparable in both arms. In addition, atazanavir was associated with none of the metabolic abnormalities seen with many other protease inhibitors.Conclusions. Use of atazanavir for 48 weeks neither resulted in abnormal fat redistribution in antiretroviralnaive patients nor induced other metabolic disturbances commonly associated with HIV-related lipodystrophy. Longer-term assessments (e.g., at 96 weeks) will be important to confirm these findings.

No abstract

No abstract

Pregnancy in women post-conization was associated with a risk of preterm delivery. However, there were no significant differences between women who underwent conization before and those who underwent conization after delivery. Cervical conization does not necessarily increase the risk of preterm delivery in subsequent pregnancy. Conization should be considered an indicator of such risk because it is associated with pregnancy complications arising from socio-epidemiologic factors present in women requiring conization that are also present in women who have premature delivery.